Talk:Eretnid dynasty/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 14:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Will review over the following days... Constantine ✍ 14:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

From a quick read, it looks fairly comprehensive, and I saw no glaring errors or omissions (from my admittedly superficial knowledge of the Ilkhanate and Turkish beyliks). More detailed comments follow:

Lede

• Have made some copyedits in minor issues to save time.
• The Eretnid dynasty...was a dynasty that repetition, the second part is redundant. Also, would 'beylik of Eretna' not be a valid English name (and the translation of Eretna Beyliği)?

  Some sources refer to it as a sultanate (Eretna formally declared himself a sultan), and some use the term "beylik". However, some also distinguish the Eretnids from the beyliks, as it sprang from the Ilkhanate and doesn't share the same history as the other states. I thought "dynasty" would be a more neutral term for this mess. And various articles that are both about a royal family and state are also titled as "X dynasty". I've now removed was a dynasty that. I've replaced Eretnid dynasty with Eretnids in the first sentence.

• For Tīmūrtāsh, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad I, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī and all similar names in the article I would recommend, per WP:MOSAR, not to use diacritics but give the simple transliteration.

  I removed some of the diacritics but will finish removing all soon.

  Done with this.Aintabli (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• sultanate and sultan both link to sultan. Perhaps replace 'sultanate' with 'principality' or 'state', wikilinking to Anatolian beyliks? And when mentioning the title of sultan, I would suggest adding that this meant a claim to being a fully independent ruler, no longer a vassal monarch.

  Replaced it with state wikilinked it to Anatolian beyliks. Added claimed independence declaring himself....

• the Dulkadirids, and the Ottomans perhaps give briefly an indication that the former were to the south of the Eretnids, while the Ottomans to their west?

   Done

• Link vizier

   Done

Background

• as part of the division of the Mongol Empire. After half a century, when was the division of the Mongol Empire? So that readers can contextualize what half a century later means.

  Added that it started with Möngke Khan and his reign in parentheses.

• the seventh Ilkhān Ghazan's death perhaps 'the death of the seventh Ilkhān, Ghazan...' to avoid readers thinking that it was the seventh Ilkhan Ghazan who died...

   Done

• Would recommend adding regnal dates for all rulers mentioned (use template:reign).

  Added those for several Ilkhanid rulers. Will note when I'm done with all the rulers mentioned.

• Add a date (even approximate) to the map of the Ilkhanate

  Added the interval for Ghazan's reign.

  Hmmm, cannot see any change...

  Yeah, I appear to have messed up. I am also editing other related articles, such as Eretna, so I often have multiple tabs open. I might have forgotten to publish the edits, but now it should be good. Sorry!

  It's happened to me enough times as well, don't worry. But I still can't see the dates ;). Constantine ✍ 10:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, it seems I forgot that you've initially asked me to add his reign to the map. I had added that to the nearby paragraph. I have now also included the same dates in the caption of the map. Aintabli (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Eretna (1335–1352)

• Tīmūrtāsh's father Chupan's influence over the state better 'the influence over the state of Tīmūrtāsh's father, Chupan,...'

   Done

• Link Chobanids at the first instance, and clarify that they are the same family as Timurtash's

   Done

  and Chobanid master (and Chupan's son) Timurtash's appointment as... is difficult to parse. Perhaps smth like 'and the appointment of Eretna's master, the Chobanid Timurtash, as...'?

• Ali Padishah's attempt to occupy the throne which throne?

  Ilkhanid

  Can you add it for clarity?

  I have now added it to "this" article. At some point yesterday, I started editing Eretna without noticing it was the wrong article.

• rose in the Ilkhanid domains quickly in 1338 'quickly' doesn't fit here, I don't know what you mean to say? Shortly after? And which Ilkhanid domains are these?

  Shortly after makes sense.

• There is some link duplication, e.g. [[Mamluk Sultanate|Mamluk Egypt]] and [[Mamluk Sultanate|Mamluks]]. As earlier, link a term once, at first mention (in the lede and then the body); after that MOS recommends to leave it unlinked.

   Done

  Forgot to ask this before: is "Mamluk governor of Anatolia" a quote or a translation of a title? If a quote, then it should be attributed in-text (although IMO it is a trivial statement and does not need to be quoted).

  It is not a quote, so I removed the quotation marks.

• gained enough power to be able to issue his coins do you mean that Eretna 'gained enough power to be able to issue his coins in his own name'?

  Yep.

• new Mamluk sultan add his name and regnal dates

  The source doesn't make it clear which sultan it was, and around that time, there was a political turmoil within the Mamluk Sultanate such that several sultans ruled several months. I tried to make up for that by rewording that part: he did not hesitate to send his ambassadors to Cairo to secure Mamluk protection and his status as a na'ib amidst political turmoil within the Mamluks

  Quite satisfactory solution.

• his status as a na'ib. provide at least a brief gloss in parentheses of what this means.

   Done

  Hmmm, deputy what? For the average reader, it might read that he was a deputy in parliament. I guess here it has the meaning of 'feudatory governor'? Also, please have the link direct to the specific section 'Naib (Ottoman, Iranian, Arabic title)', as the article is otherwise about a specifically Indian context.

  Viceroy would better fit and was actually mentioned in nawab. I've also tweaked the wikilink accordingly.

• his earlier victory the last male mentioned is Hasan Kuchak, so this is confusing.

  It should have been Eretna's.

Sources

• Have fixed the dates for the EI2 sources, and added the EI2 template and the TDVIA templates.

  Thanks. I have recently started using those templates and was thinking about adding them to the older articles I've worked on. Aintabli (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Be consistent with providing OCLCs and ISBNs. If you do so, please cover all sources (ISSNs for journals)

  Added as much as I coud find (OCLC, ISBN, and ISSN). Aintabli (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Access dates are not really needed for print media; only for websites, which may suffer from linkrot

Will do the other sections tomorrow, and a source spotcheck after the first set of issues has been done. Constantine ✍ 21:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Eretna (1335–1352) cont'd

• ulama, sayyids, and sheikhs provide brief glosses for each, or some description that allows readers to understand what social class they represent.

  I've added a note in parentheses at the end that they are some sort of religious dignitaries. Explaining each would take too much space.

• As a general comment, when referencing historians, add their occupation and their timeframe, e.g. 'according to his contemporary, the Maghrebi traveller Ibn Battuta'

   Done

Muhammad I (1352–1365)

• Eretnid emirs suggest to gloss here as well (smth like 'regional governors'?) and a question: in a Turkic context, shouldn't they be beys?

  Sources (especially the Turkish ones) overwhelmingly refer to them as emirs. As I pointed out, the Eretnids were often distinguished from the local Turkmen states as they were an offshoot of the Ilkhanate. The emirs could also be described as regional feudal lords instead of governors, because after the death of Eretna, they gained a lot of autonomy and were in fact stronger than Eretna's descendants.

• Gloss vizier (smth like 'chief minister' would suffice)

   Done

• A map of Anatolia with the cities mentioned in the article would be a useful addition. If you can't find one, you can customise smth like I used at Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915).

  I added a map of Anatolia and labels for some of the cities that were mentioned. I couldn't add all the cities due to limited space. There are some zoomed in maps for the specific parts of Turkey that could allow more labels to be placed, but the location map template does not work with the ones I was thinking about using. Those would also leave out some faraway places mentioned together in the same paragraph/sentence.

• Not sure the word debaucherously exists... Perhaps 'Muhammad's rule did not fare well, due to his debaucherous behaviour'?

   Done

• the region of Canik give some context on where this was, e.g. 'the northern region of Canik, on the Black Sea coast' or similar

   Done

• Dulkadirids have already been linked before...

   Done After addressing all of your comments, I will go over the whole article to make sure there are no duplicate links.

  I have now gone over each wikilink to make sure they are not reused elsewhere in the article (except for the lead and the infobox). Aintabli (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• who were preparing to prosecute him for the rebellion he led this rebellion is not otherwise mentioned, so give a link or some context, e.g. who were preparing to prosecute him for an anti-Mamluk rebellion he led in 13XX'

   Done It was an independence rebellion.

• Relink dinar to gold dinar

   Done

• as he was deposed by his emirs, and his half-brother Jafar reigned for a year. can we add a date here?

  Yes. It's 1354–1355. I changed the reference.

• fled to Konya[34] taking refuge amongst the Karamanids[27] and later Sivas. here it is unclear whether he first fled to Konya, then the Karamanids, and then to Sivas. WHen Konya was last mentioned, for example, it was part of the Eretnid realm. Smth like 'fled to Konya[34], which had been regained by the Karamanids,[27] and later moved north to Sivas.'

   Done

• Ibn Kurd, recognized him and assisted him in the restoration of his rule does this mean that Muhammad travelled incognito? And do we know why Ibn Kurd resolved to aid him?

  No to both.

• In April 1355, he faced Jafar ... He came to terms recommend replacing both 'he's with 'Muhammad'.

   Done

• WP:REDLINK Chavdar, you can still link the Turkish article using the Template:ill.

   Done

• Beg would recommend replacing with plain 'ruler'

   Done

• However, this effort failed to regain Mamluk control over Malatya? It is nowhere mentioned that the Eretnids actually succeeded in taking the city.

  Changed in a joint campaign to drive the Mamluks away... to in a joint campaign successfully driving the Mamluks away....

Ali (1366–1380)

• Karamanids and emirs have already been linked before.

   Done

• ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn 'Ali give the full name, with laqab, at the first mention. I would also recommend moving ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn 'Ali was particularly known ...disregarded in political matters.[42] to after ...following the murder of his father.[40] Thus the political irrelevance of the monarch is established, and the rise of the local emirs is more understandable.

   Done

• Statesman is vague. Give his exact role or title.

   Done

Muhammad II Chelebī and usurpation by Kadi Burhan al-Din

• after his father, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn 'Ali died in August 1380 from the plague already mentioned right before, so this is redundant.

   Done

• who was the mamluk this may cause confusion with the Mamluks of Egypt. Provide a gloss or paraphrase (e.g. '...who had been a soldier in the service of the recently-deceased....'

   Done (Added "slave-soldier" in parentheses.)

Culture

• Eretna's rule does this refer to the first Eretnid ruler, or all of the dynasty?

  Eretna, the first Eretnid ruler.

  Then this is slightly confusing, as you first mention Eretna, and then the Eretnids. Is the lack of architectural legacy only relevant for Eretna, or for the Eretnids as a whole? Constantine ✍ 10:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  On p. 114, Sümer largely discusses Eretna's reign, but later on the same page, he also touches on the "Eretnids'" lack of architectural legacy, which clearly shows that he also means that for Eretna's descendants, too. So, I have added an additional explanatory note to transition from Eretna to overall Eretnid rule, i. e. the reign of his descendants. Aintabli (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• the inscriptions on the building that ceased to exist better, 'the now vanished inscriptions on the building'...

   Done

• scant number of literary works perhaps ' scant number of surviving literary works' since presumably there were more at one time?

   Done

• The pictured Quran scroll is not mentioned in the article.

  None of the sources mention it, however. So, I don't really have much to add about it.

Family tree

• Give a brief context for the Karamanname, just as for other historical sources (date, brief description). Ditto for Tavarikh-i Jahangusha-yi Ghazani

  I added which state these works were created under. I couldn't give an exact date as they are largely unknown. Aintabli (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. A very nice article on a neglected topic! Will do a second pass, along with a source spotcheck, once the points above are addressed. Constantine ✍ 22:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I addressed all of your points for now. They were quite a lot (thank you so much for the help), so I will watch out for anything I might have missed until you return. Aintabli (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.