Talk:Suleiman of Germiyan

GA Review

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

Nominator: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 01:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: PearlyGigs (talk · contribs) 09:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Starting review

Hi, Aintabli. I'll do this review. It's part of the current GAN backlog drive. Hope to let you have some feedback soon. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I've read the article and it's very interesting. I just made a few copyedits, mainly in the final section where I was slightly unsure about how the two consorts were presented.

I do have one question for you which concerns the statement: Suleiman Shah had to recede to Kula. Are you sure about "recede" here because the context seems to be that he had to "retreat" or "withdraw". I usually associate "recede" with inanimate things like waters or hair.

Next step, per WP:GAN/I#R3 is to select a sample of citations for a verification spot-check. If these are okay, I'll be able to do the rest of the review based on all six of the GA criteria. I'll let you have the sample results later. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check sample

I've had to use a translation tool for each of the sources but there is no problem with any of them, and I think the article could actually be expanded quite a bit, based on what I can see in the translations. I accept, by the way, that spellings of names vary but it is obvious in each case who is intended. Sample results:

• FN04 (Uzunçarşılı 1969, p. 45) – "Suleiman Shah assisted the Hamidids in recovering their lands lost to the Karamanids. This initiated a rivalry between Ala al-Din and Suleiman Shah".

Verified.

• FN07 (Varlık 1974, p. 66) – "Suleiman Shah had to recede to Kula, where he died in early 1387 (before April that year)".

Verified. Note that the translation uses "retreat"; also, Varlık as well as Uzunçarşılı confirms the burial in Gürhane.

• FN09 (Varlık 1974, p. 67) – First consort was "a daughter of Umur of Aydın".

Verified.

• FN10 (Varlık 1974, p. 64) – Second consort was "Mutahhare Abide Hatun, who was the daughter of Sultan Walad, son of the famous Sufi scholar and poet Rumi".

Verified.

• FN12 (Turgut 2017, pp. 17–18) – Offspring and names.

Verified.

So, it looks promising. I'll move on to the full review now, using the six GA criteria. Back later. PearlyGigs (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

I'll use this list to record the results. I have no problems around NPOV or stability so those two are okay. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Well written.

a. Prose. Nothing wrong with the style of writing; everything is understandable. A few minor tweaks were needed but spelling and grammar are fine.

b. MOS. The lead is a good intro and summary — very concise and says what needs to be said. Layout is standard and the other three aspects don't apply.

2. WP:V and WP:NOR.

a. List. Reflist accords with publishing industry standards.

b. Inline. Passed all citation spot-checks (see above).

c. NOR. None.

d. CVP. None.

3. Breadth of coverage.

a. Main. Entirely adequate given that relatively little is known about Suleiman. There is room for expansion, of course, but the coverage is fine for the purposes of this review.

b. Focus. This is one of the article's strongest points, based on what I can glean from the source translations.

4. Neutral. No problems. The information is presented objectively.

5. Stability. No problems.

6. Images.

a. Copyright. One is public domain, the other is an editor's own photo. Both are suitably tagged.

b. Relevant. Yes, and the captions are fine.

Result

Hi, Aintabli. I'm pleased to say that this article passes the review and I will promote it to GA. It's a very interesting piece of history. I have to admit I'd never heard of Suleiman previously and it's always good to read something new. Very well done. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the review. Your edits are all fine by me. Do you have any additional suggestions to improve the article? Aintabli (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PearlyGigs, I wouldn't say that this review is incomplete, exactly, but I see you mentioned that I think the article could actually be expanded quite a bit, based on what I can see in the translations - it's really helpful if you can be more specific, so the nominator has something to work from to improve the article. Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

asilvering, I can't be more specific, as such, because I could only deal with translations necessary to understand what is in the article now. My observation was based on the scale of the sources which made me think there could be much more information that Aintabli and other editors might possibly use. That would be the editor's choice, of course, but this article as it stands is a good one, and I DO consider the "review to be complete, exactly".

You may as well know that I am taking no further part in your backlog drive and I will have nothing more to do with the arcane GA process which is a waste of time and space. It has no standard because many reviewers ignore the supposed criteria and instructions.

As far as I and other editors are concerned, compliance with the B-class criteria is sufficient for an article to be considered "good". Obviously, a much higher standard must apply to FAC nominations, but the so-called GA has no credibility at all and the site would be well advised to scrap it. PearlyGigs (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@PearlyGigs, if you have concerns with the GA process and reviewers ignoring the criteria, I suggest you open a topic on the GAN talk page so people can discuss it further. (Though I'd advise you to avoid language like "waste of time and space" if you want anyone to listen.) fwiw, I think of B-class as basically "GA without the formal review", so at least in my opinion, you're basically on track with what you think a GA is. -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 10:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Ottomans annexed much of western Anatolia in 1381 as part of the dowry payment made by Suleiman of Germiyan for his daughter Devletşah Hatun's marriage to the Ottoman prince Bayezid?

• Source:
• Varlık, Mustafa Çetin (1974). Germiyan-oğulları tarihi (1300-1429) (in Turkish). Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası. p. 61. OCLC 6807984. Retrieved 8 January 2024.
• Mélikoff, I. (1965). "Germiyān-Og̲h̲ullari̊̊". In Lewis, B.; Pellat, Ch. & Schacht, J. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Volume II: C–G. Leiden: E. J. Brill. OCLC 495469475.

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Aintabli (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Aintabli (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC).

• This looks an interesting article in a underrepresented field, worthy of being a DYK.
• The article is new enough, having been promoted to GA on the same day as nomination, and long enough, with 669 words of readable prose. It is reliably sourced, free of copy violation and presentable, as confirmed by the GA review.
• The hook is interesting and sourced. However, it is long at 190 characters, which is close to the limit for a DYK of 200 characters, with many wikilinks. I suggest reviewing this to make it more pithy and engaging, and seeking to include, at most, three wikilinks, including one to Suleiman of Germiyan.

@Aintabli: Having reviewed one of your other articles for GA, I thought it would be interesting to undertake this DYK. Plesse take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Alt1 ...that Suleiman of Germiyan allowed the Ottoman annexation of much of his territory to pay his daughter's dowry?

@Simongraham:, I hope this is much better. Aintabli (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That looks excellent. I believe this is ready to go, but would just like confirmation from a more experienced reviewer. simongraham (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aintabli and Simongraham: Needs an end-of-sentence citation (and actually, spelling out the word 'annex' in the article wouldn't go amiss). Otherwise, nice work. (The GA in question simongraham refers to is Talk:Ali of Dulkadir/GA1, so his review doesn't fall foul of WP:DYKRR.)--Launchballer 15:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Thank you for the comment. I'm unsure what you meant by end-of-sentence citation, since I have already provided a source here. Sorry for the confusion. I have only a few DYK nominations, so this might be something obvious that I'm not getting at the moment. Aintabli (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I guess you might have assumed this was a new piece of information, which is actually a shorter version of the first hook. I've added much of to the alternative hook when describing his territory that was annexed, because it sounds as if "all" of his territory was taken by the Ottomans. Otherwise, the article itself details what part of his territory was lost to the Ottomans as part of the dowry payment. Aintabli (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear.--Launchballer 14:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Okay, thank you. I have separately cited page 61 in the article, and changed the citation here to match that. (It was initially a range.) Aintabli (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Which is cited to a Turkish source, so AGF approve.--Launchballer 08:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: To be honest, I got a bit lazy, as this book is one of if not the most comprehensive source on the subject. But this info is also mentioned by all the other relevant sources, specifically the English-language source (Encyclopedia of Islam) found in the Wikipedia article. I have now added that ref here as well. Aintabli (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: simongraham (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)