Talk:Ibrahim I of Ramadan

Ibrahim I of Ramadan is currently a Royalty, nobility and heraldry good article nominee. Nominated by Aintabli (talk) at 22:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Short description: Beg of Ramadan from 1354 to 1384

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Turkey

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Nominator: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 22:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 15:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

~~... a Turkmen chieftain of the Yüregir tribe... Why not "...a chieftain of the Turkmen Yüregir tribe..."? Was he one of the many chieftains of the Yüregir? When?~~
There isn't much available information if there were other chieftains of the same tribe. Replaced with the version you suggested verbatim as it's much clearer. Aintabli (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add more information about south(eastern) Anatolia, the Yüregir, the Uchok and their neighbors (who are mentioned in the article), and also about the position of the Mamluks of Egypt in Anatolia in the period?
~~He was referred to as Ramadan al-Turkmani al-Ujoghi (رمضان التركمانى الاوجعى) by contemporary Arab historians. Is this necessary. If yes, I would move it to a footnote.~~
I had originally created an article on his father, but there was barely anything on him to merit a separate article, so I speedy-deleted my creation and transferred the content here. With that said, I have included that sentence in a footnote.
~~...would eventually be granted... Why future-in-the-past? When?~~
My poor writing skills... Fixed. Aintabli (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Emir of the Turkomans... ~~Why is the title italicised?~~ Could you provide some information about this office? (Perhaps within the framework of general information about southeastern Anatolia requested above.)
~~...by the Mamluk Sultanate... Perhaps "by the Mamluks/Mamluk Sultan"?~~
... following the Dulkadirid leader Zayn al-Din Qaraja's (r. 1337–53) dismissal in 1352 due to a rebellion he joined Rephrase it for flow. ("after his predecessor, the Dulkadirid leader Zayn al-Din Qaraja (r. 1337–53) was dismissed for disloyalty...)
Done
Ramadan is thought to have died before June 1354, when Ibrahim arrived at the Mamluk sultan's court in Damascus with a gift of a thousand horses, securing the position his father had received. I would change the whole sentence: 1. Ibrahim's mission should be mentioned both because he is our "main character" and for chronological reasons; 2. Ramadan's death could be mentioned thereafter. Why "is thought"? If this is a scholarly PoV, name the scholar for attribution.
Changed to In June 1354, Ibrahim arrived at the Mamluk sultan's court in Damascus with a gift of a thousand horses, securing the position his father had received. Ramadan likely died before Ibrahim visited Damascus.
According to the Ottoman historian Aşıkpaşazade, Ramadan issued protection for his Armenian subjects upon gaining control of Adana, Tarsus, and Missis. This obviously happened beore Ramadan's death. How did he gain control of the three cities? Make it clear that Aşıkpaşazade is a 15th-century Ottoman historian. What does "issued protection" mean?
Removed as it appeared somewhat out of scope. Could be added to the article on the dynasty.
Further details about his life and reign are unknown as the Ramadanids came into the spotlight with his son Ibrahim's rule. I would delete it or only state that Ibrahim is the first Ramanid ruler whose life is well documented/sourced.
Stated that Ibrahim is the earliest well-documented ruler. Aintabli (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ibrahim failed to maintain his authority over the neighboring Bozok tribal confederation, which prompted the Mamluk sultan to recognize the Dulkadirid ruler Ghars al-Din Khalil (r. 1353–86) as a legitimate ruler, although Khalil was in frequent discord and occasionally at war with the Mamluks. 1. We left Ibrahim somewhere in Egypt in the previous section. Did he return? 2. What happened exactly? Did the Bozok rise into rebellion or refused to obey him? Did Ibrahim fight them and was defeated? 3. As a legitimate ruler of what? 4. Was or had been "in frequent discord and occasionally at war"?
Aiming to capture Sis from the Mamluks, Ibrahim joined an alliance with Khalil in his rebellion. We should be informed first about Khalil's rebellion before reading that Ibrahim joined him. Why did he want to capture Sis? (I assume it was an important center of power/commerce/...).
Was Ibrahim among the Turkmen lords rallying to Timurbay?
...with forty men... 1. I think "each with forty men". 2. Some explanation for the number ("as it was required by customary law/...")
...Timurbay's attempt at raiding them elicited a major backlash that resulted in his defeat and capture in the passage of Bab al-Malik Shorten the text and provide a reason for his attack: "the greedy/suspicious/... Timurbay attacked them but they defeated and captured him in the passage of Bab al-Malik..."
In order to gather intel on the disloyalty of the Turkmens in the region... Rephrase (Maybe, "Suspicious about the Turkomens' loyalty,...")
Introduce Yunus al-Nawruzi.
When the plans of the Turkmens to attack Aleppo and Malatya surfaced... Were there such plans? Ibrahim was among the Turkmens?
Shorten Yunus al-Nawruzi to Yunus or al-Nawruzi when he is mentioned for the second, ... times.
The Mamluk army vanquished the Dulkadirid, Ramadanid, and various other local forces on 6 July 1381. Where?
Ibrahim relayed his apology to the Mamluk sultan to the governor of Sis, Toruntay. The Mamluk sultan forgave Ibrahim. I do not understand the first sentence. I would consolidate the two sentences.
...was recognized... As?
...he was given the title na'ib of Adana Only the title, or was he appointed as the na'ib? Why?
The Mamluk army led by emir Yalbugha started marching north on 27 December 1383. I assume the army departed to attack Ibrahim (and possibly other rebellious Turkmen chieftains).
The Mamluk army led by emir Yalbugha started marching north on 27 December 1383. When he reached the passage in Bagras, Yalbugha stationed the na'ibs of Aintab and Bagras there to guard the path to Bab al-Malik. Aleppine Mamluk emirs Timurtash and Guchlu seized control of the bridge in Missis over the Ceyhan River before Yalbugha reached there on 9 January 1384 observing that the bridge was significantly damaged by the Turkmens but still allowed the army to pass. Yalbugha approach north to Sis. Several local Turkmens pleaded for mercy through embassies, which Yalbugha accepted. Shorten significantly. What is relevant, that Yalbugha lead the campaign to Anatolia, forcing several Trukmens into submission.
On 11 January, the main portion of the Mamluk forces arrived in Missis. Portion? I assume Missis is a town or village near Adana. Clarify it.
Ibrahim evacuated Adana... We were not informe in the previous sentences that he had seized Adana.
Fix references 1 and 3 (Sümer was not published in 2007, but in 1995, according to the Bibliography). Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I appear to have used the wrong volume number in the citation template. I have now corrected it. Aintabli (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aintabli: when do you think you will have time to address my above comments? Borsoka (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Borsoka, this is actually the first time I'm seeing your comments. I remember checking this page right around when it was first created, and it didn't have any comments then (it seems you added them an hour later). I've been inactive lately, so I forgot to check this page again. Just wanted to clarify that I wasn't ignoring the review. I will get right to your suggestions. Sorry for the completely unintended wait. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Ping me when you are ready. Borsoka (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think when you will be able to address the above issues? I put the article on hold for a week before making a decision. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]