# Talk:Suleiman I of Persia

1666 + :

1666 "Suleiman I" -Llc 33, but it includes many other Suleiman I = Suleiman the Magnificent
1666 "Safi II" -Llc 60
1666 "Sulayman I" -Llc 38
Shah + :

"Shah Suleiman I" -Llc 4
"Shah Sulayman I" -Llc 35
"Shah Safi II" -Llc 46
In 1666 Abbas II died and was succeeded by Shah Safi II. After a year on the throne that was marked by epidemics and famine, he was re-crowned as Sulayman.
-- Takabeg (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Why would we call him by a name he only had for a few months as shah? --Folantin (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There was no any Suleiman II, so why Suleiman I???Inloopas (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Suleiman I of Persia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pharaoh Thutmose III (talk · contribs) 00:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I, after assessing the submitted article, have deemed it worthy of "good article" status.

Hello @Pharaoh Thutmose III thank you for your review, but I think you forgot to actually confirm this as passed. Take a look at the instruction page please, if you don't know how. Thanks Amir Ghandi (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Amir Ghandi, as I noted at WT:GAN, it seems clear from their failure to properly conduct a review, their very limited Wikipedia experience, and because they've missed a number of prose issues that need fixing, that this was not an adequate GA review. I've set the nomination status to "2nd opinion" in the hopes that a new reviewer can be found to give this extensive article the attention it needs. A good copyedit is in order: there are a number of expressions and wordings that are problematic, though for the most part the writing is clear; it's those atypical phrases that need to be fixed before this can meet the prose requirements of a good article. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, BlueMoonset. I'll do some copyediting while waiting for a new reviewer to take this. Amir Ghandi (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


### New reviewer for nomination
This section is for the new reviewer to conduct the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I'll take this one over, though I don't have much time tonight. I didn't see anything that I need to do to indicate that I'm the second reviewer, is that correct?
Sturmvogel 66, that's correct. Since you're taking it over, I'll switch the review status from "2ndopinion" to "onreview". Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Images properly licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
When Abbas II died in 1666, his grand vizier, Mirza Mohammad Karaki, did not know that the shah had a son Not relevant for the lede
Removed it
His reign as Safi II undergone troublesome events which led to a second coronation being held for him in 20 March 1668, simultaneously with Nowruz, in which he was crowned king as Suleiman I. Awkward, rephrase
Done
he found a chance to undertake the kingly education Awkward, rephrase
Deleted the sentence
Too much material on Abbas's reign. Reduce this to the things that impacted Suleiman's reign
Done
but departed on the Caspian Sea What does this mean?
Typo, I actually meant 'departed to'
The tsar of Russia, Alexis, made a delegation "sent" a delegation
Amended it
which deteriorated his health rephrase
Done
link toman, astrologer
Done
, with the shah in their support, rephrase
Done
Down to reign as Suleiman I, more once these are dealt with--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66 All done Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I've made a bunch of edits to clean up your prose. Feel free to revert them as you wish.
and he started shunning responsibilities This is unclear, whose responsibilities? Shaykh Ali's or the Shah?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Shaykh Ali's. Amir Ghandi (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66 BlueMoonset checking to see if this has been officially passed now? The 2nd review still appears in its early stages and there is no checklist provided to confirm everything is in order, though the article has already been listed. Ppt91 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the article passed. I don't use a checklist, so don't count on one always being present.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)