Talk:Isa Kelemechi

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

POV concerns

This appears to be somewhat of a coatrack article, related to Franco-Mongol alliance. In actuality, very little is known about Kelemechi, he just has a few passing mentions in some sources.
The picture at the top right of the article has nothing to do with Kelemechi.
The lower image has a misleading caption, about an "alliance against Islam". That's a strongly POV phrase, and is not borne out by the sources

I am also concerned that there's not even enough notability here to really justify an article about this individual. --El on ka 06:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine :-) Changed "proposed an alliance" to "proposed collaboration"... what do you call it when you offer to unite forces against a common enemy? Illustrations just illustrate, and do not necessarily have to exactly represent the subject matter, hum... only illustrate it. Seems completely notable to me. I suggest you remove the tag. I removed the DYK nomination of the article, as I wish to please you and I am not interested in getting into this level of dispute. Best Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the sources, it seems that Kelemechi was a member of the embassy to the Pope, and that the embassy carried a letter from the Ilkhan. There's nothing about negotiating "an alliance against Islam". Kelemechi was not charged as a negotiator, he was simply a messenger, or perhaps not even a messenger, but simply someone accompanying the messenger.

Also, the proposed collaboration was not "against Islam", it was against the Egyptian Mamluks.

As a side note, could I please ask that citations be formatted a bit better? Especially on Franco-Mongol alliance, which is currently undergoing GA review, so it's important to try and maintain some consistency in how the citations are formatted. Having the URL to Google Books is great, and makes things easy to verify, but as you know, to get an article to GA or FA status we also need years, publishers, ISBN numbers, etc. Thanks, --El on ka 07:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I'll incorporate these comments into the article. I'll see what I can do for the refs (won't be around during the week-end, so I'll do that next week). Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Okay, instead of using a style that looks like this:

Medieval science, technology, and medicine: an encyclopedia by Thomas F. Glick, Steven John Livesey, Faith Wallis, Routledge 2005, ISBN 0415969301 p.485

What would be better would be this:

Glick, Thomas F.; Livesey, Steven John; Wallis, Faith (2005). Medieval science, technology, and medicine: an encyclopedia. Routledge. p. 485. ISBN 0415969301.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The syntax would look like this:

{{cite book | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SaJlbWK_-FcC&pg=PA485 | title=Medieval science, technology, and medicine: an encyclopedia | author=Glick, Thomas F.; Livesey, Steven John; Wallis, Faith | publisher=Routledge | year=2005 | isbn=0415969301 | page=485}}

Or if the above is too difficult to read, you could use the expanded version, just adding returns before each pipe symbol:

{{cite book 
| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SaJlbWK_-FcC&pg=PA485 
| title=Medieval science, technology, and medicine: an encyclopedia 
| author= Glick, Thomas F.; Livesey, Steven John; Wallis, Faith
| publisher=Routledge 
| year=2005 
| isbn=0415969301 
| page=485
}}

Does that help? --El on ka 17:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 10:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]