Wikipedia:Peer review/Ta'zieh/archive1

Ta'zieh

I've listed this article for peer review.

Thanks, Aoifemahood (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• The lead is confusing. After looking through the article, I think that all the different Ta'ziehs that are described are similar enough that they can be included in one article, but the lead makes it sound like they're almost unconnected. The phrase "shi'ite Muslim ritual that reenacts the death of Hussein" seems a good definition and it would be better to start the lead with that. The rest of the lead should summarize the body of the article.
• "Today, we know of 250 Ta'zieh pieces": it's not clear what this refers to. Manuscripts of the passion plays? 250 different passion plays? The paper & bamboo mausoleums? Something else?
• Is it really true that every single Ta'zieh piece (whatever that is) that is known was collected by Cherulli? That's what the last paragraph of the lead appears to say.
• Some copyediting is needed, e.g.: Ta'zieh as a kind of passion play is a kind of....
• I don't understand the first sentence in the Origins section. What does it mean to say that something is "a kind of...form considered as being the national form of Iranian theatre"?
• Mithraism, Sug-e-Siavush (Mourning for Siavush) and Yadegar-e-Zariran or Memorial of Zarir: these need more explanation, or at least links.
• There are uncited statements throughout the article; everything should be cited.
• The origins section seems poorly structured. There's very little about the actual origins, and the information that is present is not in a logical sequence.
• The section "Ta'zieh in Persian Culture" seems to imply that Ta'zieh predates Islam. If that's so, then the origin information is clearly misleading. I'd suggest laying out all the information chronologically, rather than jumping back and forth like this.
• The appearance of the characteristic dramatic form of Persia known as the ta'zïye Mu'izz ad-Dawla, the king of Buyid dynasty, in 963: there appears to be a word missing here, but if this says, as it seems to, that Ta'zieh dates back to 963, the earlier statement that Ta'zieh dates to the late 17th century is incorrect.

I'm going to stop reviewing here; the article needs a great deal of work to make it internally consistent and properly cited. Glancing down the rest of the article there appears to be quite a bit of interesting detail, with citations. If the article structure is fixed and the problems I mention above are addressed the good material in the article would show to much better advantage. As it stands I think a reader unfamiliar with the topic would never make it down that far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)