The Forgotten Kings was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 15, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iran This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Forgotten Kings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 07:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

This appears to be about a book of WP:FRINGE history (judging from wording like "contrary to the opinion of most historians" in the lead) and except for a single published review used to source a single sentence, and some of the small "Legacy" section, is sourced almost entirely to the book itself, rather than to reliable independent sources about the book. The English is bad to the point of at times being nearly unreadable. If there are enough reliable independent sources with enough independent coverage of this book to pass WP:GNG, I didn't see them in the article and didn't find them in searching the web. I conclude that this is so far from WP:GACR #1a and #2c (not to mention core policy like WP:NPOV) as to be a quick fail under WP:GAFAIL. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ David Eppstein: hi David Eppstein. i think i can finde some independent sources and if it's need i can rewrite the whole article, Just let me know what I should to do, because this is my first GA review. Amir Ghandi ( talk) 07:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

(1) Find multiple reliably published sources that cover the content of the book in depth (such as published book reviews in academic journals), assuming these sources exist

(2) Rewrite the article entirely based on what those sources say about what is in the book. State clearly what parts of the book the sources accept as valid and what parts are disputed and why. Do not base any of the article on your own reading of the book. Cite those references clearly indicating which parts of the rewritten article are based on which references, with at least a citation per paragraph (more if parts of the paragraph are based on different sources). Be sure to rewrite this all in your own words, without just copying the words of the sources.

(3) Get a native speaker of English to help you copyedit the rewritten article to be in clear English (e.g. through WP:GOCE).

(4) Re-nominate the article once its English is polished, its content covers all major topics covered by reliable sources about the book, the article is written neutrally (reflecting the consensus of scholarship on these topics and not just what this book says), and all content is properly referenced. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply