Talk:Nader Shah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nader Shah article.
Article policies
WikiProject Iran Nader Shah is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Nader Shah was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: July 29, 2007
Nader Shah was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 2, 2008

Nadir Shah is not included in the list of Iranian monarchy nor in that of the Safivids Dynasty. Can anyone tell why?

because actually he did not have any relation to royal family. he was just a turkic nomad from poor family. In most historical works, Nadir Shah is included in the list of monarchs. If he isn't it is just a mistake (I don't know what books the person who asked the original question is reading). There is not a King or Emperor in history that didn't at some point come from humble beginnings. It is just a question of when. Nadir's parents were members of the Afsharid tribe. The Afsharid tribe was one of the many powerful nomadic tribes that were semi-autonomous in Iran at that time. The Afsharids were of Turkomen origin and moved to Azerbaijan as a result of the MOngol invasions in the 13th century. They were partially moved back to Khorasan by the Safavids in the 17th century, who doubted their loyalty (they spoke Turkish, and as such were potential allies to the Ottomans). This was a common practice amongst dynasties in Iran's history. Nadir's family was part of those that were moved back to Khorasan. Exactly how poor a family he was from is not entirely clear, but the fact that Nader had a grandfather leads historians to believe that his family, although shepherds, were not entirely without means. Nearly all Iranian kings, other than the Pahlavis, came from Tribes or Clans, that provided the initial base of power and support. Lastly, Nadir Shah Afshar was not a Safavid, as his full name makes clear. His rule, however, proved to be short lived although he is known in history as the last great conqueror from Asia. His military accomplishments were phenomenal in the short time of his reign, but like most great generals, his governmental administration was abysmal.

You state, "Nadir Shah is not included in the list of Iranian monarchy nor in that of the Safivids Dynasty. Can anyone tell why?". There is a very simple explanation to the second part of your question. The second part of the question, as I interpret it, is saying: why isn't Nader Shah included in the Safavid Dynasty? The answer is he is part of the Afsharid Dynasty. He is not part of the Safavid Dynasty. The Afsharid Dynasty included these kings: Nader Shah, Ali Gholi, Ebrahim, Shahrokh. I think you know this since you state, "Nadir Shah Afshar was not a Safavid". Do you care to explain why you think he should be included in the Safavid Dynasty? Agha Nader 08:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader


Contents

[edit] Cleanup

Article needs:

  • Wikification
  • Categories
  • Image Nadershahtomb.jpg does not have source and copy right information

Mahanchian 23:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


I made some changes correcting minor errors. Nader was assassinated at Fathabad, not Golnabad. Abbas III died in 1739, not 1736 (or 1740). The Afghans invaded in 1722 (they merely raided Kerman in 1719).

The images without copy right information should be removed. This article needs more sources. When I started editing it, it barely had any sources. The "Invasion of India" needs improvement. Some categories should be added, such as Nader Shah's religious reform, and economic and social impact. If these are not addressed, I can address them in order to improve the article, with sources of course. Agha Nader 05:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

[edit] Just my 2 pence

We are building the Project from a global perspective for use across the world, and not from the point pf view of any particular region or nation. Accordingly, contents of historical stubs and pages should reflect the aspiration of wikipedians to build a truly global encyclopedia. --Bhadani 15:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I did a complete clean up. I think the article is now more respectable.

[edit] Images?

What happened to the images? why they can't be displayed? (The Unknown 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Turkmen

In Turkmenistan people tell stories about Nader Shah that he is Turkmen and he killed Turkmens.

[edit] Some errors corrected.

I have corrected some errors, on the basis of my research toward my book on Nader Shah. Most of the facts can be checked in the Lockhart biography and the cambridge history of Iran (added to references). The Afghans raided Kerman in 1719, but the invasion (correct word? the Afghans had been Persian subjects) and conquest of Isfahan took place in 1722. Abbas III died in 1739, not 1736 (or 1740). Nader was assassinated at Fathabad, not Gulnabad, and the date was 19 June. Ahmad Shah Abdali/Durrani was loyal to Nader to the end and supported his grandson Shahrokh in Khorasan later: it was Ali Qoli who organised Nader's assassination and tried to take the throne afterwards.

MAx 08:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, no original research. You state "I have corrected some errors, on the basis of my research toward my book on Nader Shah.", I would appreciate it if you would no longer add original research. Official Wikipedia policy states, "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source" WP:NOR. It continues, "Wikipedia is not the place for original research." I greatly appreciate your interest and involvemnet in this article. Nader Shah is an important historical figure, and readers would like to know more about him. I hope you will continue improving this page, but of course without original research. Agha Nader 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Correcting errors is not original research, and the corrections I made are corroborated by published, reliable sources. But some errors are still there. What reliable source says that Reza Qoli planned Nader's assassination in 1747? It was Nader's nephew, Ali Qoli, not his son, Reza Qoli. MAx. PS I appreciate your interest and involvement too.

From my understanding it is not known for sure who planned the assassination of Nader Shah. The article says that Reza Qoli is the most probable suspect. Iran chamber writes "He suspected his own son, Reza Qoli Mirza (1719-1747), of plotting against him and had him blinded." [1] Iranica writes "When the would-be assassin claimed that he had been recruited by Reza-qoli, the shah had his son blinded in retaliation, an act for which he later felt great remorse." If you have any sources that say Ali-qoli was responsible, that too will be represented in the article. Also please sign your name with four tildes. Agha Nader 20:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

It is true that no one knows for certain who planned Nader's assassination. But Ali Qoli was already in revolt, made himself Shah immediately afterwards, rewarded several of the killers, and was the chief beneficiary of his uncle's death (Sword of Persia, pp 276-283). He had Reza Qoli killed. One contemporary source says that Ali Qoli was in contact with the chief of the conspirators by coded letter. Reza Qoli was perhaps the instigator of the assassination attempt in the Savad Kuh in May 1741 (to which I think your quotations refer) but by 1747 he was blind, imprisoned in Kalat-e Naderi, and out of the game. Incidentally, contemporary sources suggest it was Mohammad Khan Qajar Erevani who killed Nader (beheading him), after Saleh Khan cut off his arm.86.149.9.65 22:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Our source must explicitly say that Ali qoli was responsible. To say he was responsible based on the fact that he was in a revolt is OR. Please read WP:OR. Agha Nader 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Does your source (what source? any source at all?) say explicitly that Reza Qoli was responsible? The word that appears now in the text is 'probably'. It is far from probable that Reza Qoli was involved. If anyone was involved, it was probably (PROBABLY) Ali Qoli.Period. That is not Original Research. It is Common Sense. Is anyone moderating this? Help please.86.149.9.65 21:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nader not Nadir

Should change the article name to Nader shah --Spahbod 20:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NADER SHAH

Nader is the Correct Form ( نادر ) همان نادر شاهی که بد تو دهنی به عثمانی ها زد

I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY--Pantherarosa 23:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The inadequacies of the arabic script when it comes to short vowels mean that it is rather hard to say what the "correct" transliteration of نادر is in the latin script. In 18th century English it was usually "Nader", in the 19th century and today "Nadir" as this reflects the Indian pronunciation of his name (he became widely known in the West largely because of the sack of Delhi). Doesn't seem that important to me. Sikandarji 22:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose that Nader Shah be referred to as Nader Shah throughout the article and not Nadir. Why should two spellings of his name be used in the article? His alternative names have already been mentioned in the beginning of the article. I am interested in any objections. Agha Nader 05:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

He was born in Afshar province in Kurdistan his tribe migrated to Khorasan by the Safavid density to fight the Turkmen raiding and lootings of Khorasan cities.

Nader was born in Khorasan, into the Qiriqlu Afshar tribe who had been moved to Khorasan years before. MAx.

[edit] Sunni Shia reconnicliation

The article should include information about Nader Shah's efforts to reconcile the Sunni with the Shia. Agha Nader 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

[edit] Failed GA

I am removing this article from the list of GA candidates, for the following reasons:

  • This article is not NPOV. It makes a number of claims about the greatness and magnificence of this leader, and this will need to be cleaned up to qualify for GA status.
  • This article is poorly sourced. Most of the citations are from a single website that isn't even linked. It should be further sourced and the existing sourced cleaned up. Statements like "historians agree that it was the only way to avoid the spread of riot and losing India" absolutely need multiple sources to stand.
  • This article needs a copyedit.
  • Certain portions of the article could use further wikilinking.

Chubbles 08:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore this article is not broad in its coverage. There isn't anything about the situation of Iran before rising Nader. Also there isn't anything about his government and dynasty. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • All POV statements have been removed. If you believe any remain please list them so they can be discussed.
  • The article is now sourced from 4 websites and 2 books.
  • The article was checked for a spelling and grammatical errors. It was also nominated to be copyeditted by the League.
  • The article has been extensively wikilinked.

Please list any further problems so the article can be improved. Cheers.--Agha Nader 00:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopaedia Iranica link

This link:

Was added by a Columbia University IP along with many other links to the site. I have moved it hear in keeping with our external links guidelines so unconnected editors can evaluate its appropriateness. Many of the website's entries are short and may not contain much more than the articles they have been added to. However, this might be a good source even if editors do not consider it an appropriate external link. -- SiobhanHansa 01:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica is produced by Columbia University and like Encyclopedia Britannica is a scholarly source. It should not be removed from the articles as they are pertinent sources of reference.--Zereshk 13:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

After reviewing the article, I've failed its GA nomination. Below is some advice and the issues I found in the article. Of course, you are more than welcome to renominate the article at a later date if you improve upon the points below or believe my review to be in error.

  • The image in the infobox is a little weird. There's no reason to add all those attributes ("thumb," "200px," "right," etc.). See Ahmad Khan Abdali for an example of the way it should look, caption and all.
  • The article still needs more references. The "Invasion of India" section has none, for instance.
  • Most of the article is relatively out of context. It lists all of Nader's victories, but fails to state why he's fighting all these people in the first place.
  • The "Early life" section and other biographical information is lacking. Much of the article reads more like a wartime-resume than a biography. Granted he is known most for his military achievements, but I would like to know more about the person himself as well as the world around him.
  • A few remaining POV statements:
  • "Because of his military genius"
  • "Nader Shah was the last great Asian military conqueror"
  • Although this might seem to go against the previous review, there's a bit too much wikification. For example it seems unnecessary to link to "military" or "Asian." This is ultimately a judgment call on your part, but words for which the definition is commonly known are not usually wikilinked.
  • The introduction should be a little longer for an article of this size.
  • Although it is not required of a GA article, it would be nice to see the references done using a citation template.
  • The first sentence of the first section shouldn't start with "He."
  • A few statements are left unexplained. For example I have no idea what "Qirqlu branch of Afshar Turkmen" means, and the Turkmen article didn't help much. You must presume a relative lack of knowledge on the part of the reader.
  • There's a few unnecessary red links, such as Malek Mahmud Sistani and Mehmandust. If an article doesn't exist don't link to it.
  • "Napoleon of Persia" and "Second Alexander" should be in quotation marks, not italicized.
  • The bullet point list of the "Defeat of the Afghans" section should be converted to prose. Try to avoid proseline while doing so.
  • "The leader of the Gizli Afghans was Ashraf." So? Who is that? Why is that significant? He isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article.
  • In the "Ottoman Campaign" section, about half of the sentences begin with "Nader was" or "Nader then." Vary the prose a bit.
  • "Reza Qoli Mirza" Who is that?

It seems as if the article has a long way to go, but it is certainly not beyond help. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to bring them up here or on my Talk Page. Good luck. Drewcifer3000 10:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon IP edits

The anon IP which is making edits on this page, as well as that of Qajars and Safavids, should not be modifying the quotes to scholarly articles taken word-to-word. Modifying those is OR. Atabek 07:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article should say Turkic not Turkmen for Nader and the Afshar tribe. Click on Turkmen in Wiki and you go to Turkmenistan etc. The Afshars had nothing to do with the Turkmen of Turkmenistan - Tekke, Salor, Yomut etc. To suggest otherwise is misleading . 86.150.54.147 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic origin

Guys, please discuss on talk rather than edit war. When you have a rough consensus please let me know or request unprotection on WP:RPP Alex Bakharev 11:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Karent82 said "Turkmans are not Turk, they're Turkic, and this is alerady xplained under origins", which is irrelevant since the article says:

Nader Shah was of Turkic decent. He was a member the Turkic tribe, Afshar, of northern Persia [1]. The Afshar tribe had supplied the military power for the Safavid state since the time of Shah Ismail I.[2] Agha Nader 13:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment From Michael Axworthy's biography of Nader, The Sword of Persia (I.B. Tauris, 2006), p.17-19: "His father was of lowly but respectable status, a herdsman of the Afshar tribe...The Qereqlu Afshars to whom Nader's father belonged were a semi-nomadic Turcoman tribe settled in Khorasan in north-eastern Persia...The tribes of Khorasan were for the most part ethnically distinct from the Persian-speaking population, speaking Turkic or Kurdish languages. Nader's mother tongue was a dialect of the language group spoken by the Turkic tribes of Iran and Central Asia, and he would have quickly learned Persian, the language of high culture and the cities as he grew older. But the Turkic language was always his preferred everyday speech, unless he was dealing with someone who knew only Persian."
Axworthy notes he has "followed the convention of using Turcoman for the Qezelbash and other Turkic tribes within Persia, and the term Turkmen for the Turkic steppe tribes like the Yomut, Tekke, the Salor and others, who lived on the northern borders of Khorasan. The latter group of tribes were Sunni Muslims and shared a distinctive, separate cultural identity". NB: Wikipedia makes no such distinction ("Turcoman" redirects to "Turkmen").
So Nader Shah was Turkmen (or Turcoman) and Turkic, but not a Turk or Turkish. --Folantin 13:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The article does not claim he was Turkish, it states "Nader Shah was of Turkic decent. He was a member the Turkic tribe, Afshar"--Agha Nader 13:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't claim that now, but IIRC an anonymous user added such a statement. I thought that's what the whole edit war was about (perhaps there was someone else claiming he was a "pure Persian" - I can't remember). This can now be unprotected since we have established Nader Shah's origins correctly. --Folantin 08:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Folantin, Turkic-speakers in Iran are usually referred to as "Turk". Atabek 23:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Not in English they aren't. --Folantin 08:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


The reference presented to origin of Afshar tribe clearly says Turkic. I don't see why it should be replaced by Turkmen without proper references to the effect. Atabek 02:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The sources are under the origins' section, the intro is suppose to be a summery of the whole article. Turkmen is more specific and more commonly used, Turkic is a racialist term. AlexanderPar 05:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkic is not, in any of the reading I have done, a racialist term. It is simply used in usual English parlance to distinguish people speaking languages in the Turkish language group, but living outside Turkey (and those languages), from the people living within the state of Turkey, the Turks. 86.150.53.188 11:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jafari?

What is excactly meant by Nadir Shah's promoting of the Ja'fari shi'ism? Ja'fari is the Fiqh-school of standard Shia Itha Ash'ariyya, which the Safavids themselves were adherents of. As such, Ja'fari cannot be sat in opposition to Twelver Shi'ism.87.51.211.84 (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "good article" nomination

MY Comments were deleted by me.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15
45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
had a virtual or complete lack of reliable sources What absolute rubbish. The sources are perfectly reliable, especially Axworthy and the Encyclopedia Iranica (written by Tucker, one of the leading academic experts on Nader Shah).
Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. So which material is "likely to be challenged"? There is nothing here that is controversial except his date of birth and (this being Wikipedia) his ethnicity.
Most refs from Axworthy book do not have page nos. That's because those sections are a condensation of the material in the chapters in Axworthy's book. I'm not going to reference every sentence to each page because almost nothing in this article is controversial.
Inline citations required. What? There are inline citations.
This article did not receive a thorough review. You can say that again.
Thank you for your work so far. Thanks for nothing. --Folantin (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
My Comments were deleted by me.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15
45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You are completely wrong. There is certainly no policy saying every sentence must have an inline citation. GA requires inline citations "for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". I think this article fully complies with this. I should not have to apply for a Good Article Reassessment. Other users and I have put a lot of work into this and I want a proper Good Article assessment by somebody who understands the criteria properly. I suggest you remove your review and replace this article among the Good Article Candidates. The other minor points you made have been dealt with:
  • Ref 3 is link to Encyclopedia Britannica, home page.: Encyclopedia Britannica, home page says nothing about Nadir Shah. EB refs replaced
  • I couldn't locate the name "Histoire de Nadir" in ref 21. New ref provided.
  • Most refs from Axworthy book do not have page nos. Converted. Thank you. --Folantin (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Indeed, you're right about that, but you still have to have quite a few citations in order to be a good article. Neither of you are completely wrong, both of you are almost right. See WP:CITE. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 11:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you need to cite material which is controversial or likely to be challenged. The material which is likely to be controversial or challenged in this article has been cited. --Folantin (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"I've reinstated it myself. --Folantin (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)" was comment left on my talk page. So be it. I have removed all my comments from this page.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Turkic or Turkmen?

At present the article has Turkmen as an adjective to describe the Afshar tribe (in two places at least). This is misleading and incorrect. Click on Turkmen on Wiki and you go to the article on Turkmenistan, and the Turkmen of Turkmenistan are and were unrelated to the Afshars (aside from that they all spoke Turkic languages). Before Nader's time the Afshars had been living in Persia for centuries (having been one of the original Qezelbash tribes that had helped found the Safavid dynasty), had been Shi'a for centuries and were to a significant degree Persianised (though still speaking a Turkic language as their mother tongue). In Khorasan they, like other inhabitants of that province, were frequently the target of Sunni Turkmen slavers (from the Yomut, Salor, Tekke and other tribes) raiding south from Khiva and the region around there (now part of Turkmenistan). The adjective describing the Afshars should be Turkic not Turkmen. 217.44.238.57 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Click on Turkmen on Wiki and you go to the article on Turkmenistan". Wrong. Click on "Turkmen" in this article and it takes you to Turkmen people, which clearly shows the Turkmens are not confined to modern Turkmenistan but also live in Afghanistan and NE Iran. Moreover, our sources refer to Nader Shah's background as "Turkmen", notably Ernest Tucker (a major expert on this era of Iranian history) in the Encyclopedia Iranica here [3]. Nader's most recent English biographer, Michael Axworthy, refers to the Afshars as "Turcomans" too. --Folantin (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic policies

I have found some sources discussing Nader Shah's policy towards Jews and other non-war topics. I am not certain to what extent the domestic policy section should be expanded. Since he is mainly known as a conqueror it may be undue weight to stress his domestic policies. Any thoughts?--Agha Nader (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty more we could add (I have lots more info too), but I don't think we need to at the moment. This is perfectly good enough for a GA. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA Nom

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I see much improvement here since the previous GA nom, but there is still significant work needed to meet the good article criteria. The main area in need of improvement is the tone of the article—it reads more like an historical novel told from Nader Shah's point of view than a encyclopedic article about him.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    This is the main tonal issue mentioned above. I think it stems from using terms like "genius" and "powerful" to describe Nader Shah while using "weak", "traitorous" "treacherous" and "marauders" to describe his enemies. Even though the terms may well be accurate, they also imply a point of view (see Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint)
I believe another way this tone is implied is through using the active voice to describe Naders actions. For example, the phrase "Nader decided he needed to regain the initiative as soon as possible..." really puts the reader inside Nader's head. The only way we might be able to know that's what he was thinking is if we had a diary to reference, and even then it would be better to say "According to his diary, Nader decided to...". In this case, it's better to state what he did without rationalise it, then state what effect it had, and leave it to the reader to judge if Nader Shah actions were intended to have that outcome.
  1. B. MoS compliance:
    The lead could be broken up in paragraphs and possibly expanded slight, but this is minor. I also curious why he is referred to as Nader Shah while others are, for example Shah Ismail.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    This relates a bit with the "words to avoid" comment above. While including a single reference at the end of a paragraph is usually sufficient, highly contestable statements should be referenced immediately. Examples of these statements in this article are Nader's "genius", Soltan Hossein's "weakness", and any accusations of murder, treason or assassination (this last is very important; without a reference, it appears wikipedia is accussing the people involved of these crimes!).
    C. No original research:
    Fine provided the editorial tone is cleaned up and contestable facts cited.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Might add something regarding how Nader Shah is viewed in modern times. Is there a holiday in his honor, statues of him, or institutions named after him? Or has his legacy begun to fade from the popular consciousness?
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    This can be resolved by fixing the comments on tone as well.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Image:Peacock Throne.jpg has an obsolete copyright tag and needs to be updated. Minor issue.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The article contains a good amount of information but has quite a few problems with encyclopaedic tone. Once this and the other minor issues have been addressed, I suggest the article be taken to peer review and then renominated.--jwandersTalk 18:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment I find the comments about the lack of "encyclopaedic tone" ridiculously pedantic. Nowhere do the terms "traitorous" and "marauders" occur in the article. The assassination attempt on him is common knowledge (i.e. every account of Nader's life mentions this) as is the weakness of the late Safavids.
"Is there a holiday in his honor, statues of him, or institutions named after him?" Um, look at the picture: "Tomb of Nader Shah, a tourist attraction in Mashhad". "I also curious why he is referred to as Nader Shah while others are, for example Shah Ismail". You curious, but that just naming convention we must follow.
I've recently been thinking about salvaging an article (Berber people) which is riddled with problems and is barely referenced. Surprise, surprise - when I looked at the talk page I saw it had been passed as a Good Article. This simply confirms my conviction that GA is a lottery and the whole process is broken. --Folantin (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I mistakenly said "traitorous" where I meant "treacherous". "Marauders" is used in the "Defeat of the Afghans" sections, in the phrase "carried off as slaves by marauding Uzbek or Turkmen tribesmen". --jwandersTalk 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
All of these terms are perfectly accurate as can be seen from the context. I specifically checked Wikipedia:Words to avoid before putting this up for review, and as far as I can see, none of those terms are on there. This has been failed for completely subjective reasons while other articles with major POV issues have passed GA with no problems. I find it hard to believe that referring to Nader's assassination is somehow POV. It's historical fact, just like the assassination of Julius Caesar. --Folantin (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concerns. I can only imagine how it feels to have an article you've worked hard on not make it past a review, especially after waiting so long due to the GAN backlog. Please understand that the review is not a reflection of you and your work on the article is greatly appreciated. You're right that a number of the GA criteria are subjective, and due to the single reviewer nature of the GA process, some articles do get passed when they ought not to or failed when they should pass. This is the cost GA pays for the benefit of a simpler process than FA. Regarding the articles you've found with major POV issues, I encourage you to follow the steps at wp:good article reassessment to get them delisted.--jwandersTalk 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that sounds too much like boilerplate. I want specific answers to my concerns. I and the other users who edited this article have complied with policy and followed the steps necessary for GA promotion yet this article has been rejected on subjective grounds. --Folantin (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you: a number of GA criteria are subjective, and I've given my honest, good faith review of this article against them. But I'm more than happy to be corrected. If you disagree with the review and my decision not to pass the article at present, you'll need to post it at wp:good article reassessment. There, a number of editors experienced at reviewing articles will discuss with you and the article's other editors whether or not it meets each of the GA criteria.--jwandersTalk 00:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"You'll need to post it at [[wp:good article reassessment]". Er, no thanks, given the quality of GA reviews I've seen so far I'm quite tempted to put the whole process up for MfD as a fraudulent waste of editors' time. I already had to resubmit this article for GA candidacy after it received a "quick fail" on blatantly false grounds. It's obvious reviewers simply make up their own criteria rather than following Wikipedia policy. Of course, the easiest way to get a pass is to go schmoozing on IRC. Maybe next time we'll use that method. --Folantin (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that Folantin has put in a lot of effort here, and that the article has failed GA mainly because someone (on the basis of rather less effort) did not want to take a risk. The assassination of Nader Shah is a known fact. If wiki really is worried about accusing someone long dead of carrying out an assassination, when serious authorities agree on it, then the whole wiki project begins to crumble into impossibility.86.136.74.32 (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)