Talk:Safavid occupation of Basra

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Safavid occupation of Basra (1697–1701)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 16:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Images

• Accuratissima et Maxima Totius Turcici Imperii Tabula needs a USPD tag.
  • Done.
• As do Shah Ismail I and Sultan Husayn by Bruyn.
  • Done.
• "Venetian portrait of Ismail I, kept at the Uffizi". Can I suggest adding 'Gallery in Florence'.
  • Good suggestion, done.

Y

Sources

• Why is "IRAQ iv. RELATIONS IN THE SAFAVID PERIOD" in upper case?
  • Done.
• Longrigg: ditto "THREE"?
  • The third version of the Encyclopedia of Islam is the only version where its written in upper case.[1] That's why Cplakidas wrote it in upper case when he created the encyclopedia's template.[2]
• Longrigg: "Basra from the Mongol conquest to modern period" should be in title case.
  • It appears Brill changed the title within the past few weeks. I adjusted it accordingly. Should be good like this?
• Floor: in Sources you give a page range of 142–146; in the two actual cites you refer to p. 165.
  • Done.
• Matthee should have a location; see [3].
  • Done.

Y

Other

• Note a: "fiercely independent". All quotes should be cited immediately after the quote. (Yes, even if there is an identical cite at the end of the sentence/paragraph.) From the MoS: "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". I think "fiercely independent" counts as an opinion. Or you could remove the quotes, either leaving the two words as is - this does not, IMO, class as plagiarism - or paraphrasing slightly.
  • Good suggestion, done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I have copy edited. If you disagree or don't understand anything, could you bring it up here.

• Valid changes, much appreciated Gog!

• The Ottomans and the Safavids need a bit more of an introduction in the lead, even if only two or three words each.
• "It played a pivotal role in the growth..." Perhaps preface with 'As an important port' to provide context?
  • Done.
• What is "unhealthy weather"?
  • LOL, not sure how that ended up there. Done!
• "Large parts of present-day Iraq were considered very unsafe with unhealthy weather; plagues contributed to turbulent periods in Basra's history." Actually this whole sentence doen't really make sense. Want to have another stab at it?
  • I find it difficult to rephrase. Its pretty important information nonetheless IMO as it sheds light on Iraq and Basra in particular. Do you have any suggestions?
• "they quickly fell under influence of the Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu" And who might these last two be?
  • Added "Turkoman" in front. I decided not to add anything about their cultural/political identity, as it will only attract POV-pushing IPs and sockpuppets. Please let me know what you think.
• I think that the article would read (much) better if your notes were simply left in the text. (With the exception of j.) They provided relevant context, and scrolling up and down to them is irritating. They fit into the flow of the article well. I won't push this if you have a penchant for notes, but I strongly feel that you should.
  • Great suggestion. I've kept some quotes which I believe were too irrelevant for the main text (in addition to quote "j"). Should read much better now.
• A brief introduction to the Carmelites?
  • Copied some material from the lede of Carmelites. Hope I didn't add any undue weight. Please let me know what you think.
• Safavids/Iranians - pick one and stick to it throughout. I am not sure if you sometimes write "Arab" when you mean Ottoman; if so, please don't.
  • As you know, "Ottoman/Turks" is very often used interchangeably in literature, and the same goes for "Safavids/Iranians". "Arabs" represent a whole different/separate faction. I think its important to keep it this way, as these three factions were all at play during this occupation. Thoughts?

Hi Louis, this is really good. You have a potential FA here. Some first comments above. I'll have another run through once you have responded to them. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Hey! Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this. I wouldn't mind bringing this to FA at some point in the future. BTW I created a few sections and added one more image. Please let me know what you think. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead

You missed a comment. Suggestions:

• The Safavid occupation of Basra was the takeover of the important Persian Gulf city of Basra by the Muslim Safavid dynasty of the Persian, or Iranian, Empire between 26 March 1697 and 9 March 1701.
  • Done.
• They gained control of the city of Basra with the support of 5,000 members of the Moshasha, a Muslim Shi'i sect based in western Khuzestan Province.
  • Done.
• In 1695, Shaykh Mane ibn Mughamis and his Arab tribesmen had revolted against the Ottomans, the Muslim Empire which controlled much of the Balkans and the Middle East.
  • Done.
• Is there a map which shows the spheres of influence of the two empires at around this time? (Optional for GAN.)
  • Unfortunately not, but maybe I can find one later on.

Further points

• Some more copy editing. Don't hesitate to say if you don't like it.
  • Its an improvement, thanks!
• "In the latter year, during the reign of King (Shah) Ismail I" I don't know about you, but I have lost track of which year "the latter" is.
  • Done, valid point haha.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Professor Rudi Matthee", like any name, only needs to be given in full at first mention, and subsequently as 'Matthee'.
  • Should be good now? Or am I missing one?
• "According to [Professor Rudi] Matthee" becomes repetitive. I have tweaked a few; see what you think. You may want to tweak some more yourself.
  • Thanks, removed one myself as well.
• "the lower half of Iraq". "lower" -> 'southern'.
  • Done.
• "the report was apparently brought in such a spectacular way" Query only: I am not sure about this wording. Do you mean that 'the defeat was reported as being so spectacular that ...'?
  • I meant to say that the report was brought to the court in a spectacular manner. Tweaked a bit; please let me know what you think.

That's all I've got. A nice piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff. Promoting to GA. Can I suggest putting this straight into ACR? A solid article IMO. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this. Sure, will do! - LouisAragon (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

However

Thanks LouisAragon, I have taken out a couple more. Obviously, put them back in if my version doesn't read right to you. I think that we all struggle to proof read our own work; certainly I am frequently chastened as basic grammar errors are picked up in my articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Definitely, especially articles we've been working on for quite some time. Some sort of "tunnel vision"? Not sure, but it can be pretty weird nevertheless. Sometimes it feels as if people are seeing simple "ABC"'s which your own eyes are somehow unable to locate. Then a few hours/days later you're like "oh, wait....".
Once again Gog, thank you very much for your time. It reads much better now! - LouisAragon (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)