Talk:Teresa Sampsonia/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 14:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The quote in the lead should be cited there.
  • Footnote 2 should be "pp."
  • Not required for GA, but you're missing the publisher information for Schwartz (2013) and El Reyes (2013).
  • The birth name of her father Ismail Khan is rather unspecified: "rather unspecified" doesn't really mean anything. Do you mean "uncertain"? And this apparently means that "Ismail Khan" is not her father's birth name, so what is it? If there are two kinds of name being discussed we need an explanation; most readers aren't going to know about it.
    What I meant to say, is that his birth name was probably not Ismail Khan. The Safavid Empire was multi-ethnic; those who were of Christian origin, usually bore non-Perso Islamic names at birth. His daughter (Teresia/Teresa) refers to him as "Samphuffus" on her gravestone, and modern scholars (Chick & Mattee, Andrea), state that he was also known as "Sampsuff Iscaon". - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very helpful explanation. Could we make it "is uncertain", and add a note giving that information? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did she become Catholic on her baptism by the Carmelites? If so, I think we should explicitly say so in the article.
  • The nature of Robert Shirley's appointment is unclear; he was English and was "sent to the Safavids", so he is apparently working on behalf of the English crown, but then he is sent on a diplomatic mission to England, which makes no sense if he's working for England. Did he work for Abbas?
    He was initially sent by the English to the Safavids as envoy/ambassador, alongside his brother Anthony Shirley. When Anthony left Iran for England, Robert stayed. So yeah, upon arrival and for some years after, Robert worked on behalf of the English crown. Thereafter, still located in Iran, he was employed by the Safavids. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK; this isn't an article about Shirley, so I've struck the point, but you might consider making it a bit clearer at the point in the article where his employer changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sequence of events in the first paragraph of travels appears to be confused. The "first trip" together is dated (according to the linked article) as 1609-1615, but then we get "they arrived in Rome around November 1608". Can we get more specific dates for all of these events?
  • Yep. Will look it up. Most likely its a 1 year difference between sources. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • they decided to turn young Henry over either to the care of the queen,[14] or Robert's own family in Sussex: which did they decide on?
    To leave the child in England as they returned to Safavid Iran. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck. (I was hoping the sources would say which of the two options they decided on.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning to Qazvin (at that time the capital): Our article on Qazvin says that it ceased being the capital in 1598; is that incorrect?
  • Shirley and the envoy: do you mean Cotton? If so, I would make this "Shirley and Cotton".
  • His officials continued to plunder her wealth: "continued" implies this was ongoing, but it hasn't been mentioned before this in the article.
  • and the Carmelites in Isfahan asked the khan of Shiraz for consent: add "on her behalf", assuming that's the intended meaning.
  • Suggest linking "mullah" at first appearance.
    Was already linked at first appearance as far as I can see? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. So it was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sequence about a mullah questioning her, the article says She was ordered to appear before a mullah, who would question her about her past and her religion and adds that the Carmelites found this unacceptable, but apparently what they asked for was a change in location, which is not mentioned as something they objected to.
  • confounding the mullah is not neutral language and should be rephrased.
  • What's the date of her questioning?
  • Probably somewhere in 1629 (after her husband's death, just before her departure; not specified in the sources though). - LouisAragon (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't say whether she was allowed to leave for a Christian land after the questioning; it appears not but we should make it explicit.
  • his religious toleration varied widely: vague.
  • The khan of Shiraz' favourite: rephrase, too easy to misread as "the khan of the favourite of Shiraz".
  • sent his servants to the Carmelites in Isfahan to capture her: so she's now living with the Carmelites? Do we know when she started doing so?
  • The mullah appears in several paragraphs; do we happen to know his name?
  • As far as I can see, no, but I will make a search. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit unclear on who the khan of Shiraz is and why he has some kind of jurisdiction. Is a khan an aristocratic figure at a lower level than the shah? Why does he get to decide on whether a woman in Isfahan can leave Persia?
  • Those who held the title of "khan" held a prominent position on the socio-economic ladder. Guys with such titles were often generals, governors of important cities/provinces, etc. In Iran/Caucasus, it was some kind of high-ranking "feudal-bourgeois" title, if that makes sense. "Khans" who were especially close to the king, were allowed to handle "less important" matters (such as granting Teresa/Teresia a decree to travel abroard). I should have specified it nevertheless, but the khan in question was Imam-Quli Khan, son of Abbas' most loyal and trusted servant; Allahverdi Khan. I just fixed that part. Thanks for raising this up. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mullah asked the khan for permission to question Teresia again. Since the khan favoured the Carmelite Fathers, he said that the matter concerned Qazvin governor Rustam Khan: The first khan mentioned is the khan of Shiraz again? Why does the khan's liking for the Carmelites lead him to direct the matter to Rustam Khan? If he likes the Carmelites, wouldn't he be favourably disposed towards Teresia? So why would he refer her to someone inclined to persecute her for her Christianity?
  • The account of the events with the judge doesn't seem very neutrally phrased; "shamed" sounds like the Christian viewpoint here. Is the source for this modern scholarship, or a recounting from an old chronicle?
  • Is the mullah the same person as the judge?
  • (who allowed Teresia to leave): it's not clear if this means "leave Persia" or "leave the questioning"; it's clarified somewhat by the following sentence, but that too doesn't say "leave Persia".
  • she was noted by contemporary writers, artists and European royal houses: vague -- what does "noted by" mean?
  • Do we need the mention of the Dick Davis poem in the "In art" section? Unless a source about Teresia covers this (as opposed to a source about Davis) I would cut it. Similarly for the Mary Wroth poem.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAragon, are you planning to work on this article? If there's no progress in another week I'll fail the article. If you need more time, just let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Wow. This is really odd. Isn't there some kind of automated system that's supposed to notify nominators when the review starts? Because if you hadn't pinged me right there, I would have probably never noticed this! - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to adress all points this week. I'll let you know if I need more time! - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, now I know you're working on it. And yes, there should have been an automated notification; not sure what went wrong with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LouisAragon, just checking to make sure you're still planning to work on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I just started! - LouisAragon (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I would like to move the article title to Teresa Sampsonia (more commonly used in sources). Can I do it right now, or should I wait till we're done over here? - LouisAragon (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will cause a problem, but is it OK if we leave it till after the review? I can't be certain it won't confuse the bot and it's a quick change after we're done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I think I'm done. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of minor points remaining, but I'm going to go ahead and promote the article to GA. I'd like to see the change to "uncertain" I mention above, plus the footnote, but that's not enough to hold up promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there are some problems with the "Sources" section that don't impact promotion either; they're not in alphabetical order, and you have some harv errors and warnings -- Davis and Hannay in the sources have no links to them, and Floor in the the references doesn't link to anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I just changed it to "uncertain". Will fix the sources/footnote later as well.
Thanks alot for reviewing this article, MC! Appreciate it. All the best, - LouisAragon (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teresa_Sampsonia/GA2&oldid=1095498745"