Template:Did you know nominations/Safavid Georgia

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Safavid Georgia

edit
Northwestern part of the Safavid Empire
Northwestern part of the Safavid Empire

Improved to Good Article status by LouisAragon (talk). Self-nominated at 21:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC).

Interesting Good article, on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. Three sources are not used, intentionally so? I miss (pictured) in all hooks, and personally like ALT2 best. Please think about image placement. Right is preferred to left, to not displace section headers, but left for people looking to the right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt:
Thanks for reviewing this DYK;
  • "Three sources are not used, intentionally so?" -- that's right.
  • "I miss (pictured) in all hooks" --  Done
  • "(...) and personally like ALT2 best." -- sure, lets do it!
  • "Please think about image placement. Right is preferred to left, to not displace section headers, but left for people looking to the right." -- could you please implement what you mean? Then I can have a look.
- LouisAragon (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Unused sources: Can you place them under "Further reading" (or use them), to avoid fat error messages? Images: the "courtiers" image displaces the 17th century header (for me), which it would not if right, or higher up. The next image could go left, and I moved the 18th century one, - revert if you don't like.
@Gerda Arendt:
  • "Can you place them under "Further reading" (or use them), to avoid fat error messages?" --  Done
  • "Images (...)" --  Done
  • " (...) revert if you don't like." -- Thanks, looks good.
- LouisAragon (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)