Talk:Mahmud Gawan

GA Review

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

Nominator: Flemmish Nietzsche (talk · contribs) 08:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 13:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The only image is appropriately tagged. Sources are reliable. Spotchecks (footnote numbers refer to this version:

• FN 8 cites "After Humayun's death, he became one of the guardians of the underage Sultan Nizam Shah during his regency. This triumvirate regency council would consist of Mahmud, Jahan Turk, and the queen mother of Nizam Shah." Verified.
• FN 13 cites "These reforms would not be taken well by many of the nobles, whose power had been significantly curtailed." Verified.
• FN 37 cites "in which he was called the "envy of Rum itself", and conversed with and invited to the Deccan many other poets, including Sharaf al-Din Ali Yazdi and Jalal al-Din Davani". This is slightly inaccurate: Jami refers to India as the envy of Rum, not Gawan; and "conversed" with is also not quite right -- he carried on correspondence with them.

  You now have "his dominions were called", but the source says "India". And the sources says Rum refers to Europe in this context; I think that should be clear to the reader here too.* FN 42 cites "and thunder storm in 1696, which collectively rid it of half of the southern wing and half its front, and it was consistently neglected and left to decay through the elements. This neglect and its ruinous state caused the madrasa to become a public dumping ground for the people's filth and rubbish. The building later underwent a significant cleanup and renovation and is now in a more presentable state." This is cited to p. 93, but the relevant material is also on p. 92. Verified, but "now in a more presentable state" needs to be changed to use "as of" wording. That source is from 1947 so I think you'll want to find something more recent as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• FN 51 cites "The Sultan later regretted his ill-thought-out decision and buried Mahmud Gawan, though still in a small tomb disproportionate to the authority his rank had held." I don't see anything in the source that supports the Sultan regretting his decision.

I'll pause the review until these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

All fixed. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

One point still outstanding above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the spotcheck has to pass for the article to be promoted to GA, I'm going to do another round. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• FN 11 cites "He was given the formal title of “Lord of the habitors of the Globe, Secretary of the Royal Mansion, Deputy of the Realm", which he was addressed as in court documents." The citation needs to be extended to p. 296.
• FN 18 cites "The capture of the Konkan would virtually cease the attacks on Muslim pilgrims and would grant the Bahmanis dominance over trade in the eastern Arabian Sea." P. 415 is in the index and doesn't support the text.
• FN 44 cites "The divisions included sectarian religious divisions where the Afaqis were looked upon as heretics by the Sunnis as the former were Shi'as." Verified, but incompletely paraphrased per WP:CLOP. I think this needs to be reworded a bit more.

I am going to stop here and fail the article. The spotcheck inaccuracies are a concern, but I would not have failed the article on that basis alone: it's also because I've been looking through the body of the article, and the prose needs copyediting. Some examples:

• "The divisions included sectarian religious divisions where the Afaqis were looked upon as heretics by the Sunnis as the former were Shi'as." Unnecessarily wordy; this says the same thing three different ways.
• "its collapse caused relations between the two parties to grow increasingly stigmatized during Mahmud's fifteen-year supreme rule": I don't know what's intended -- perhaps "strained"? -- but "stigmatized" is not the right word here.
• "consequent of the drastic reforms" -- ungrammatical
• "usurp his regime": an odd usage; usually one usurps a position in a regime, not the regime
• "his statement was not given value": odd phrasing

That's just from one section, but the whole article is like this. It feels as though this was written by someone with an excellent command of English but not a native speaker. I don't know if that's right, but I would recommend getting a GOCE copyedit if possible. I am also a bit concerned by the fact that the sources are quite old. Surely there is more recent scholarship? Sherwani's work, which is heavily cited, is 80 years old. The writing style in the old sources tends to be quite florid which doesn't help either. That would be more of an issue at FAC than at GA, but it would be good if you could find something a bit more recent to work from. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've addressed all these concerns. Could you explain which point is still outstanding above that was not fixed in the initial spot check? If it's about there being no ref for the Sultan regretting his decision, there's an sfn I added at the end of that sentence after the one already there, though I could place it right after "regretted". I'm pretty sure I also fixed all major grammar issues or copyedit-needing sentences; this article is fairly short so I think I deserve a full review and a chance to fix these issues.

The problem of the footnotes not covering all pages content was summarized from is due to a bad habit I have of writing a bunch of content and then adding all the footnotes after I'm done rather quickly, which results in the issues you've encountered, but I believe I've adequately addressed.

I also cite Sherwani heavily because his two books (on Mahmud Gawan and the Bahmanis in general) are two of the most comprehensive and detailed texts there are on the topic; Chandra's and Eaton's books, both from the past 20 years, are better in that they're newer but the former only spends 3 pages on Mahmud and the latter spends ~20, but only a few on Mahmud's actual life and rule. I don't think "old" scholarship on India-related topics is necessarily bad as long as it doesn't fall under WP:RAJ, which these do not as they are not at all about the caste system. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a fair point that an old source isn't necessarily a weak source; I've worked in areas where that's the case. Re the fail: would you be OK if I tried to do a copyedit myself? I would try to get to it by the end of the coming weekend. You could then renominate it. At the moment I believe the fail was justified on the grounds of prose, but if I go through and find I don't have much to fix I'll acknowledge I was wrong about that. It would mean I wouldn't be able to do the subsequent review, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, and yes a copyedit would be welcome. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a shot. It's not an area of history I've done more than read casually about so I may have some questions for you as I go through; if so I'll post on the talk page. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Post-GA copyedit

Post-GA questions/notes from reading the sources

• Flemmish Nietzsche, I'm just starting to look at the sources, and the first thing that occurs to me is that if there's a book length study of Gawan (Sherwani 1942), plus a full chapter in Eaton, then surely the article could be longer than it is? I'm going to go through the citations and find the original source material and see what I can do as far as copyediting is concerned, but I can't read the entire source and expand the article. I think if you do renominate it, a reviewer familiar with the period might argue that the article doesn't meet the GA "broadness" requirement: that the article covers the main aspects of its topic.
• Sherwani 1942 is cited, pp. 25-27, for the start of the "origins" section, but why not use the pages before that which give details of his birth date and birth place, and his full name, and his family background? The whole story of why he left Gilan doesn't have to be told, but it doesn't match what the article currently says: "due to discontent with its political environment". Actually that's cited to Eaton but I don't see it there either.
• Sherwani gives his name as "Khwaja ‘Imadu’d-din Mahmud b. Jalalu'd-din Muhammad b. Khwaja Kamal el-Gilani". What does the "b." mean? Are all these forms of his name? From the footnote in Sherwani (pp. 22-23) I think these are the names of Gawan, his father, and his grandfather, but I can't tell which order they're in. None of them exactly match what you have as the native name in the infobox.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

While you're right that there is a lot of content about Mahmud much of it isn't actually about him specifically; much of Sherwani's book focuses on the political background of the Deccan in this period and the events leading up to the Bahmani Sultanate's fall, the latter of which is briefly summarized at the end of the article; both Sherwani and Eaton's texts also have a lot of paragraphs just stating how great he was, or how distinguished his character was, and I prefer to write about actual events and facts rather than just puffery and a person's character. There is also a false appearance of more content than there actually is by Sherwani on Mahmud, as almost all the content of his book on Mahmud is duplicated in his general book on the Bahmanis written four years later, which is extensively cited.

Secondly, I added the Sherwani sfn there later on just to verify his children and their uninvolvement in his Deccani life; the Eaton cite sufficiently addresses the content before the Sherwani sfn and is used later on. (page 62 if you're wondering)

The "b." here is a short form of the Arabic "bin", closely meaning "son of"; as in Mahmud is the son of Jalalu'd-din Muhammad, who is the son of Khwaja Kamal el-Gilani. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks -- that's helpful. I did wonder about puffery; the flowery style of Sherwani made me suspect it was not very content-rich, but I was hoping for more from Eaton, which is recent, after all.

• Are you using "due to discontent with its political environment" to refer to the conflict with Hajji Muhammad and Syed Ali? Or is this a reference to something in Eaton? Added: I see it described as "local politics" in Eaton p. 62, now; I guess that's fair but I think it would be colourful to expand it a little.
• We have "He toured various regions of Asia": I see mention of Cairo and Damascus in Sherwani, after which he's in the Deccan as far as I can see.
• What's the basis for "success as a merchant"? Eaton describes him as a high-born merchant but says nothing about his commercial success that I can see, in the pages cited at least. Added: reading on I see this and support for the mention of Asia in Eaton p. 63.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

So far I'm just reading the sources and trying to get a mental framework together, but I do have one more question before I stop reading for the night. Can you explain the various forms of his name? I see:

• Khwaja ‘Imadu’d-din Mahmud (Sherwani 1942 p.22).
• Mahmud Gawan (the form Eaton uses)
• Khwaja Mahmud Gilani (the native name field in the infobox)

As I understand it, "Khwaja" is an honorific, not a part of the name; if it does belong in the native name field, should it perhaps be linked to Khwaja so it doesn't appear to unfamiliar eyes to be part of the name itself? And what's the source for "Gilani" -- presumably a toponymic? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Mahmud Gawan is his "common name", I guess, basically meaning Mahmud of Gawan, as in the village of Gawan in Persia. Almost all sources which only give a brief summary of Mahmud's life use this form exclusively, hence the article title. Khwaja is an honorific, yes, and I could definitely link that. Gilani here is also a toponymic, "of Gilan", though sometimes the name is "Khwaja Mahmud Gaw/van Gilani", including both toponyms. The first name you mentioned is his name he was born with in Persia, but as far as I know was not used at all after that. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

One last thing: I've been looking for Qawan/Gawan in Gilan in other sources; Google Maps knows about Gilan in Iran, still, but I can't find any references to Qawan or Gawan that identify it with a modern place. Do you know if it's known where it is? Sherwani makes it sounds as if he knew (he says "born at Qawan, or in its more familiar form Gawan in the kingdom of Gilan ..."). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried to find it too, and even looked on Farsi wikipedia, but couldn't find anything; probably either only used to exist or goes by a different name now. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I also initially had this "kingdom" Mahmud was born in as the Kar-Kiya dynasty, but from what Sherwani and Eaton say it appears to be the polity to the left of it on this map, (meaning "Qawan" is in that area) which does not have its own article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This source gives a list on the first couple of pages of sources that provide details of Gawan's life; if nothing else this might be useful as a sources section in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft rewrite of first few sentences

Here's a proposed initial paragraph. Proposed subsection heading of "Family" under "Origins".

Mahmud Gawan was born in about 1411, in Gawan, in what is now northern Iran, at the southern edge of the Caspian Sea. His name at birth was Imadu'd-din Mahmud, according to Firishta, a Persian historian writing over a century later; his father's name was Jalalu'd-din Muhammad. Gawan's family was of high rank, and according to Gawan's own account had included viziers in the city of Resht. Political intrigues against Gawan's family, instigated by a minister, Hajji Muhammad, and the commander of the Gilani forces, Syed Ali, succeeded in undermining the status of Gawan's family, and at some point before 1440, both Gawan and his brother, Shihabu'd-din Ahmad, left Gilan. Gawan had three sons; their birth dates are not given, but in order of birth they were Abdullah, Ali Maliku't-tujjar, and Alaf Khan.

I haven't bothered to footnote this precisely, but it all comes from Sherwani 1942 pp. 21-33. Comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, looks mostly good to me. I would mention of him being born in a "small kingdom" and make some minor changes: "Mahmud Gawan was born in 1411 in Gawan, in a small kingdom in northern Iran, at the southern edge of the Caspian Sea." I would also remove the "writing over a century later" part as Firishta is relatively well known as a source for information in this period; it's also not necessary to mention that the birth dates of his sons are not known; we should only mention what information we do know.

I will admit that this is the one section of this article that I made very little changes to; I rewrote everything else but this section as it was well sourced to Eaton and I felt it give a good enough overview of Mahmud's early life; I only added the sentence about his sons and brother later on and made some minor copyediting changes. Overall with the suggested changes your suggested paragraph looks good though, thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Some changes per your comments:

Mahmud Gawan was born in about 1411, in Gawan, in the small kingdow of Gilan in what is now northern Iran, at the southern edge of the Caspian Sea. His name at birth was Imadu'd-din Mahmud, according to Firishta, a Persian historian writing over a century later; his father's name was Jalalu'd-din Muhammad. Gawan's family was of high rank, and according to Gawan's own account had included viziers in the city of Resht. Political intrigues against Gawan's family, instigated by a minister, Hajji Muhammad, and the commander of the Gilani forces, Syed Ali, succeeded in undermining the status of Gawan's family, and at some point before 1440, both Gawan and his brother, Shihabu'd-din Ahmad, left Gilan. Gawan had three sons: in order of birth they were Abdullah, Ali Maliku't-tujjar, and Alaf Khan.

I'd like to keep the sentence about Firishta being later -- I take your point that experts will know this, but for example when I wrote a series of articles about Anglo-Saxon kings, some time ago, I generally pointed out the dates of Bede's work and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which anyone knowledgeable about the period would already know, since it seems harmless to clarify the point for readers not familiar with the material. Or if you feel strongly about it, perhaps that could be a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added the paragraph, though I also added some additional changes I didn't mention above so that info from the second half of the former paragraph wouldn't be duplicated, and added footnotes. About Firishta, as I kept in the bit saying "Persian historian" I don't see why the reader would infer that Firishta would have been a historian of Mahmud's time; it's always available to simply hover over the wikilink and see that his birth date was almost a century after Mahmud's execution. Also, do not refer to Mahmud Gawan as "Gawan" here; I'm not an expert on Persian names but I have not once seen any of these sources refer to him as "Gawan" rather than just Mahmud, which is used throughout this article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

OK on not using Gawan; thanks for telling me. Re hovering over a link: unless I'm misunderstanding you that's only available to logged-in users who enable the relevant gadget in Special:Preferences, so most of our readers won't have that available. But it's a minor point and I'm fine with omitting it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Second paragraph of origins

Draft, cited mostly to Eaton 59-65 and the rank to Sherwani chapter III.

Over the next decade and more Mahmud travelled through Southwest Asia and as far west as Anatolia and Egypt, becoming a successful merchant, in horses as well as other goods, and taking opportunites for study in Cairo and Damascus. He was offered ministerial positions in the courts of Khurasan and Iraq during these years, but declined them. In 1453 he came to the port of Dabhol, hoping to sell horses to the Bahmani Sultanate, and also planning to meet Shah Muhibbu’llah, a holy man living in Bidar, the Bahmani capital, and then to travel to Delhi. He met first with the governor of Dabhol, and then traveled to Bidar. The Bahmani sultans of the era actively recruited Persians both as scholars and administratoprs, and Sultan Alau'd-din Ahmad Shah received Mahmud favourably. Mahmud was made a mansabdar with a rank of 1,000, and gave up his plans to travel onwards.

What's the source for Shah Muhibbu'llah being a Sufi Dervish? I couldn't spot that in Eaton or Sherwani. And I see you link to Ahmad Shah II which is a redirect; any particular reason for using that version of his name?

FYI, I see Eaton refers to him as Gawan, not Mahmud. I'll stick with Mahmud as that's your preference but wanted to point it out.

You say at the end of "Origins" that he was made a noble, and then at the start of "Career" that he was made an officer. Do these both refer to his being made a mansabdar, or was there a second appointment before the rebellion of Jalal Khan?

Comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie Sorry I didn't see this until now, but yes the "noble" and "officer" statements both refer to the same thing. I'm not aware of the source for Muhibbullah being a Dervish, as again I only made minor adjustments and additions to the origins paragraph as the Eaton sourcing and the amount of content in that section in general seemed fine when I first started to work on this article. Using Ahmad Shah II is just a stylistic choice, and it helps to avoid confusion (if Alau'd-din Ahmad Shah is used) with a previous Bahmani monarch of the same name and is a "simpler" name.

The paragraph itself looks mostly good, although I would link Dabhol and Khorasan, mention his age of 42 (after "1453"), specify what him being given a rank of 1,000 meant, and change the mention of mansabdar, as that article doesn't at all mention its pre-Mughal use and might cause confusion from it, to simply "noble" or "officer" (and of course remove the "p" in "administratoprs"). Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, done, with your suggested changes. I don't use efn or sfn so I don't know how to fix this, but it appears that putting an sfn inside an efn causes an error if the same sfn already exists outside the efn. I've half-fixed it by making it Eaton 65n, since it's in a footnote on that page of Eaton, but that is generating "pp." rather than "p.".

I can go on with the first paragraph of the "Career" section if you think my edits are improving the article, but I don't want to insist if you don't think it's helping. Let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edits are definitely helping, but both versions of the origins section seemed mostly fine; when you said you would copyedit this article I thought you meant minor changes to sentence wording and flow, not rewriting whole sections with more content, which is certainly not bad, but somewhat surprising; wasn't this supposed to be a quick check to see if there actually were the abundance of copyediting issues you claimed there were to see if you were right or not? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning to just do a prose copyedit, but almost immediately found I couldn't do so without understanding the sources, and once I starting reading I had questions about emphasis and what was included. I can try doing just a copyedit, relying on you to catch any places where I have not been faithful to the source material, if you like? That would generate questions rather than suggested sentences, most likely. It's not my intention to take over the article, but I did complain about the prose at GA and would like to help improve it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I said before a copyedit would be great, and I can answer any questions you have now or sometime tomorrow. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Copyedit

OK, per the above, here are some copy editing notes on the next paragraph.

• "After introducing himself to the Bahmani court of Ahmad Shah II, he was given an officer position, and later in 1457, given charge of an elite formation of cavalry after he had suppressed a minor rebellion." Repeats some of what is now in the origin section above it. I think it would be worth naming the rebel leaders, as Sherwani does. His was not the only military action against the rebellion, was it? This makes it sounds as though Mahmud suppressed it with no other help from the locals.
• "Greatly impressed with his military aptitude, Sultan Humayun Shah had taken him in his service and appointed him as Wakil-us-Sultanat, or Chief Minister following Ahmad Shah II's death." Why "had taken him"? And since the rebellion was against Ahmad Shah II, we must have jumped forward in time so I would suggest giving the year. I also think "Greatly impressed" is more than is needed for an encyclopedic tone; I would at least cut "Greatly".
• "In Humayun Shah's accession speech, he claims he appointed Mahmud due to him fitting the role of "one who should be clothed with the outward attributes of truth and good faith and who should inwardly be free from vices and vanity"." I don't think we need to say "claims" -- no reason to doubt this. And "due to him fitting" is a bit awkward. How about cutting most of the start of this, and joining it to the previous sentence with "... saying Mahmud was suited to the role, as "one who should ..."?
• "In addition to his main role, Mahmud Gawan was given control of military affairs and was presented with the titles of "tarafdar of Bijapur" and "Prince of Merchants" (Malik-ut-Tujjar)". Can the former title be glossed at all? I would shorten this to something like "Mahmud was also given" -- no need for the full name here.
• "After Humayun's death, he became one of the guardians of the underage Sultan Nizam Shah during his regency. This triumvirate regency council would consist of Mahmud, Jahan Turk, and the queen mother of Nizam Shah." Suggest "Humayan was succeeded as Sultan by the underage Nizam Shah. Until the new Sultan's majority, a regency council ruled, consisting of Mahmud, Jahan Turk, and the Sultan's mother." It's redundant to say it was a triumvirate, and "would" is unnecessary. And can we tell the reader who Jahan Turk is?
• "It worked well in depoliticizing the foreigner-Deccani conflict and deterring foreign invasions through its "unity of action" policy, which saw the three regents constantly unified on the best course of action and conduct. This policy would last until the death of Nizam Shah in 1463, which laid the course for the coming internal strife which would eventually see Mahmud's execution." Generally I think foreshadowing is unencyclopedic; it's better to simply relate the events as they occurred. More immediately what does "constantly unified" mean? That they found themselves naturally in agreement in all cases? Or that they made a policy decision that they would not act without all three fully supporting each action? And the logical connection drawn here doesn't seem clear -- why would unified actions automatically be successful in depoliticizing a conflict and deterring invasions? Can we get something more specific?

I'm aware this is also not a copyedit, but I'm giving you what occurs to me as I consider how to rewrite each sentence. In some cases above I've suggested a rewrite directly; in others I would want to know the answers I've asked before I feel I could rewrite.

As above, tell me if this is not useful and I'll stop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

All of these should be fixed now. Sherwani didn't go into much detail as to what them being unified meant, but it basically seems they just happened to have the same interests and thus were unified on what to do. He also doesn't talk much about who Jahan Turk actually was, so I changed it to "a noble named Jahan Turk". Sherwani's explanation for why the triumvirate appeased the two factions was that they had a policy of appeasing the two factions, which seems redundant to say; and yes, these suggestions are helpful, thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think 'constantly unified in their interests on the best course of action and conduct" is vague still. How about replacing from "It worked well" to the end with "The three council members found themselves in agreement on policy issues, and the council was effective in depoliticizing the foreigner-Deccani conflict by a policy of appeasement of the two sides, and in deterring foreign invasion"? Though since we haven't heard anything about any foreigner-Deccani conflict up to this point a word or two of explanation would be helpful there. If you do keep the current wording, "laid the course" seems an odd phrase -- normally one sees either "laid the groundwork" (or "laid the foundation"), or "set the course", but in any case those metaphors all imply a plan -- here the internal strife is an unplanned consequence. And it's also not clear whether the internal strife is a consequence of the death of Nizam Shah or the cessation of the unified policy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Should (this time) be fixed. Sherwani does make a distinction that the unity of action policy is separate from the policy of appeasing the factions, and that only the former actually ceased upon Nizam Shah's death. I changed "laid the course" to "was the catalyst", which seems more appropriate. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Next couple of paragraphs:

• ""Three years after the accession of Muhammad III, when he was fourteen years of age, the triumvirate regency came to a forced end with the murder of one of its members, Jahan Turk, ordered by the queen mother herself." I think it would be worth explicitly saying that the regency had to continue into the next reign since Muhammad III had not reached his majority either. I'd also like to get "murder" and "ordered" a bit closer to each other in the sentence. How about "Nizam Shah's successor, Muhammad III, was fourteen years of age when he came to the throne, so the regency council continued [or maybe "continued to rule"]. It was ended three years later by the murder, at the queen mother's orders, of Jahan Turk."?
• "Jahan Turk had been a disturbing force in the Sultanate by giving the new nobility positions in place of the old aristocracy, and had been disliked for his rumoured embezzling of funds from the royal treasury." Did Jahan raise people to the nobility, or is this saying that there were new and old aristocrats, and he favoured the new? In either case, what made this a disturbing force? Resentment at favouritism, I assume?
• "His insistence on having his way had forced Mahmud to flee to the frontier provinces of the kingdom, and as Mahmud was "the moderating element in the Triumvirate", the order of the court quickly decomposed, and as Jahan Turk was the imposer of this chaos, the queen mother had him killed." A bit long and complex for one sentence. I think the first part needs to be unpacked a bit -- insistence on having his way doesn't seem like a reason for Mahmud to flee; presumably some further threat was involved. I don't think "decomposed" is the right word, even as a metaphor; it has connotations of slowness and rottenness. I think you want something like "collapsed". And "order of the court" is vague -- it brings to mind chaotic scenes in the throne room, but I think the intended meaning is more to do with the rule of the state and the coherence or fairness or sensibleness of Jahan's actions. And if it was a triumvirate regency, how did Jahan get control? Though that's probably off topic for this article.
• "The queen mother retired from political affairs with the dissolution of the triumvirate, furthering Mahmud Gawan's lack of diplomatic and intellectual competition. A ceremony was held, where he was entrusted with the general supervision of all provinces (tarafs) of the Sultanate and given the title of Prime minister by the queen mother in 1466, soon after the triumvirate's dissolution. He was given the formal title of “Lord of the habitors of the Globe, Secretary of the Royal Mansion, Deputy of the Realm", which he was addressed as in court documents". We didn't get a date for Nizam Shah's death so we're in the dark here about when 1466 is relative to the previous events. When did Muhammad III succeed? After three years he would have been seventeen, so they must have been close to dissolving the regency council anyway, surely. And it sounds like Mahmud must have been the effective ruler, with Jahan dead and the queen mother retiring from politics. If that's what's meant by "lack of ... competition" I don't think it's clear enough -- I read that as the disappearance of competitors, not the elevation of Mahmud's own role. Why do we care about how court documents addressed him?
• "Following Mahmud's many ambitious campaigns and territorial acquisitions, in 1473, he himself also expanded the number of tarafs, ruled by a tarafdar, from four to eight, due to the accrued administrative burden and expansion of the Sultanate, in part caused by his own pursuits." Suggest cutting "himself", but this seems out of sequence. What does "many ambitious campaigns and territorial acquisitions" refer to? Are those covered below? If so, surely this mention of the new tarafs should come after that? And "ambitious" is a bit PEACOCKy, though if Eaton supports it it's probably OK. And it's not clear whether the new tarafs are new territory or subdivisions of old tarafs or a mixture of both -- expansion of the Sultanate implies new territory, but "accrued administrative burden" implies the existing tarafs required more resources to administer. My main concern here though is that this seems out of sequence.
• "He also instituted reforms of fixing the payment and obligations of the nobles and limiting the provincial governor's control to the assignment of only one fort. These reforms would not be taken well by many of the nobles, whose power had been significantly curtailed." Not sure what is meant by "fixing": correcting an error or oversight in the payment and obligations? Or fixing in the sense of setting a well-defined value for? And "instituted reforms of" is ungrammatical.
• "Mahmud Gawan's foreign policy caused a drastic shift in the diplomatic atmosphere of South India; he temporarily allied his state with Vijayanagara, who had been rivals of the Bahmanis since the Sultanate's inception, and established a friendship with Mahmud Khalji of Malwa, with mutual envoys sent despite three past invasions of the kingdom by Khalji." Without dates this is impossible to place in context.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Should be good now, though some things to consider:

• The sentence saying Muhammad III was fourteen was saying he was fourteen when Jahan Turk was killed, not when Nizam Shah died (he was rather 9–11)
• Sherwani is vague as well about what "new nobility" means, and why Jahan Turk was a disturbing force; all it says is "It seems that Jahan Turk began to alienate the sympathies of a powerful section of the nobility by his highhanded behaviour. He began by replacing the scions of the old aristocracy by members of the new nobility" — and for the reason of Mahmud's flight, it again says closely what I wrote in the article, "He was so much bent upon having his own way that he actually managed to send away Maliku't-Tujjar Mahmud Gawan to distant frontier provinces"
• The method in which Jahan Turk took control and the different roles the triumvirate members had which enabled Jahan Turk to have that power are explained at some point (for example Mahmud Gawan was technically Chief Minister in the triumvirate but not Prime minister altogether) but as you said that's somewhat off-topic for this and maybe should be in the Bahmani Sultanate article instead.
• I included the line about how Mahmud was addressed to show how respected and powerful he was, and as Eaton also includes the line to convey the same message; I can remove it if you think its too puffery-y.
• The date of Nizam Shah's death was actually given, just at the end of the first paragraph in that section; I added it in the third paragraph as well.
• The reforms paragraph was referring to the below section on his campaigns, and yes I moved it to the bottom of that section. Dates are given in many of these works somewhat sparingly, so it's sometimes hard to pinpoint exactly when these things happened, and you often have to do it based off the year given a few pages earlier for a "recent" event, but yes dates were added.

Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I tweaked one sentence. Re "His insistence on having his way had forced Mahmud to flee": I don't think this conveys the same thing to the reader as the quote you give. It seems the key point is that for a time at least he had enough greater influence than Mahmud that Mahmud was forced to go, but the source says "send", which is very different from Mahmud fleeing. How about "He was able to force Mahmud to leave Bidar for the provinces"? Also see here, page 9, which gets a bit more definite about Jahan Turk. In fact I wonder if it would be worth requesting at WP:RX copies of pages relating to Mahmud? It's a recent source and seems a reliable source. In the last paragraph I would suggest putting the first two events in chronological order; presumably the ties with Gujarat would be dated 1468 or earlier, so that should move up too. Will look at the campaigns and reforms section next, perhaps this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The source you mentioned is actually used in this article, and can be found with open access here, I must have skipped over the part where Jahan Turk is mentioned though; I'll add the information given to the article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I mentioned the alliance with Vijayanagara first for a reason, as it is clearly the most notable of his diplomatic efforts through their 150-year rivalry which preceded the alliance between the two states; I don't think it has to be in chronological order as long as the dates are mentioned as right now it is ordered based off how impactful these diplomatic actions were; it wouldn't make sense to say that his efforts "caused a drastic shift in the diplomatic atmosphere of South India" and follow it with a simple alliance with a state (Gujarat) which didn't have a past history of conflict with the Sultanate. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Can we change "His influence and insistence on having his way had forced Mahmud to continually assist in the frontier provinces of the kingdom" to "He had gained enough power to become the de facto ruler, with Mahmud sent to administer the frontier provinces of the kingdom"? Citing both Yazdani and the bit of Sherwani you mention above should be enough to support this. I think we need to say that he was effectively the ruler in order to explain Mahmud's absence from the capital. Then the last sentence of the paragraph could be cut to just cover his assassination -- at the moment it says Mahmud's absence led to Jahan Turk's increase in power, but that seems the reverse of what the sources say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Partially done — I don't think you're right about both sources saying Jahan Turk became de facto ruler before Mahmud left; Yazdani says specifically that "Khan Jahan Turk, however, acquired unlmited power and influence in every department of the State, and keeping Mahmud Gawan, his colleague, employed in the administration of the frontiers, he became the de facto ruler" — which says that it was Mahmud's absence which allowed Jahan Turk to seize more power, in addition to the great amount he already held, and become the de facto ruler, which makes sense. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I can see how that could be read that way; I read it as saying he acquired power, and that was how he kept Mahmud in the provinces. Ideally we'd be looking at the underlying source for this, which is presumably either Firishta or Mahmud's letters; those might make it clearer. But this isn't FAC so I'll leave it up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Copyediting "Campaigns and reforms" section

• "Mahmud Gawan partook in many campaigns and enlarged the state to an extent never achieved before, with the state stretching from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal": can we avoid the repetition of "state"? And I don't think "partook" is the right verb. What's intended here? Did he personally go on these campaigns, or instigate them, or something else?
• "The capture of the Konkan would virtually cease the attacks on Muslim pilgrims and would grant the Bahmanis increased revenue in trade." Suggest eliminating "would" -- it's much more natural for the reader to have straightforward past tense, instead of placing events in the future of the past moment. There's a Wikipedia essay about this use of "would" somewhere but I can't find it.
• A general comment, not a copyediting comment: I think a more chronological structure would be better. The second paragraph here is about the reign of Nizam Shah again, so it feels like we're jumping around. I understand there are benefits to topical structure, and I've done it myself for historical reigns, so it's a judgement call.
• "Shortly after the death of Humayun Shah and the accession of the boy monarch Nizam Shah, the rulers of Orissa, the Gajapatis, saw the Bahmani Sultanate as weak, which was typical in the presence of a regency." Suggest "When the regency council took control after the accession of Nizam Shah, the rulers of Orissa, the Gajapatis, saw the Bahmani Sultanate as weak, which was typical in the presence of a regency."
• "Mahmud, in addition with Jahan Turk, who was a member of the triumvirate regency, the queen mother, and Nizam Shah himself, led an army against the Gajapatis and drew them back from Bidar." No need to restate the nature of the regency; this was described in the earlier section. "Drew" seems to be the wrong verb: to draw an enemy is to move them in your direction; surely he pushed them back?
• "In the confrontation between the joint regency and the opposing side, an initial advantage turned into an unexpected defeat, and the party was forced to retreat." This is vague -- it's not clear from this who had the initial advantage, though it seems it was the invaders. Can we be more specific about the advantage? Then the rest of the paragraph seems to be about the same attack -- do we actually need this sentence at all? It seems to be a recap of what follows?
• "The court was temporarily moved to Firozabad, and Mahmud ordered the queen to delegate Bidar Fort to a different noble." What's the relevance of Bidar Fort here? Is it the same fortification referred to in the next sentence as "the citadel"? And Mahmud was not Prime Minister yet, so how could he order the queen to do anything? Can we get a link for Firozabad?
• "whom Mahmud and the queen had invited for assistance": "invited" seems a formal word for a military alliance. Perhaps "asked for assistance"?
• "Mahmud Begada, going by way of Malwa through his insistence not to enter the Deccan, along with Mahmud Gawan, successfully forced Khalji of Malwa to retire to his home via Gondwana": why didn't Mahmud Begada want to enter the Deccan? And isn't Bidar in the Deccan? So if he raised the siege he would have been in the Deccan? Why is it relevant that Khalji retreated via Gondwana? And I'd suggest "forced Khalji to retreat to Malwa" rather than "forced Khalji of Malwa to retire to his home"; the current phrasing sounds very unmilitary.
• "This occurrence was near-repeated the following year. Mahmud Khalji again raided far into the Sultanate, as far as Fathabad, but was repelled following a second instance of assistance from Mahmud Begada and a confrontation accompanied by Mahmud Gawan." Suggest "Mahmud Khalji invaded again the following year, reaching Fathabad, but was repelled by a force that included Mahmud Gawan, again with the assistance of Mahmud Begada."

More later, tonight if I have time. Would it be possible to get a map that shows the locations of these kingdoms and cities? That would really help the comprehensibility of some of these descriptions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Implemented most of these. In response to your points:

• "Partook" seems perfectly fine here, as Mahmud did indeed take part in and/or lead all of the campaigns mentioned; I added "and led" after "partook in" to clear up any confusion.

  I don't think there's anything technically wrong with it, though this meaning of partake is not the most common one; it's the connotations that seem wrong to me. To partake in something brings to mind partaking in a tea party or a golf outing -- it gets used for social events. If he led these campaigns, we don't need to say he participated as well, so could we just make it "Mahmud Gawan led many campaigns" and avoid the issue that way? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Drew" has multiple meanings, and "drew back", meaning push rather than pull, is one correct use of the verb. See M-W definition #2 for "draw".

  That definition gives the example of "leading" someone, which is a pull rather than a push. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• The mention of the initial confrontation was talking about the first battle between Malwa and the Bahmanis, and the latter's defeat in it is what led the Khalji to be able to lay siege to Bidar; they are separate, but I changed the prose to clarify that.

  That's definitely clearer. Could we make it "the Bahmani forces were forced to retreat", so the reader doesn't have to figure out the referent for "the party"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Bidar Fort is what was protecting the citadel, yes; the mention of it being delegated to a different noble is important as it shows how desperate the situation was at the time; Mahmud had the power to order the queen to do such a thing because of his role he held in the triumvirate, but I'm just summarizing what Sherwani and Haig write (for this part of the article, anyway).
• There would have been a link to Firozabad a while ago if there was an article on this Firozabad, but there is not; the same goes for Fathabad.
• Mahmud Begada didn't want to enter the Deccan for the reason I added, that he wished to be close to his home country of Gujarat due to the recent internal strife which affected his rule; he also didn't actually go himself to Bidar to raise the siege, but instead when Mahmud Khalji heard of his approaching forces he was intimidated to raise it himself. The Khalji retreating through Gondwana is also important to note here because it means that his way north, the most direct way back to Malwa, was cut off by his opponent's forces, and also that Gondwana was a foreign country which ended up decimating what troops he had left. All of this I specified in the article.

  Again this is much easier to understand now. I still don't get the "insistence not to enter the Deccan" explanation. I understand he wanted to be closer to Gujarat, but how could he help raise the siege of Bidar if he never went into the Deccan? Is it the case that he invaded Malwa, and the news of this reached Mahmud Khalji who then abandoned the siege? As it stands the article makes it sound like Mahmud Begada actively helped raise the siege, and the phrase "the way north to Malwa was blocked by the Bahmani and Gujarati forces" makes it sounds as if those forces were not actually in Malwa (and hence they were in the Deccan). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Lastly, here's a map of India in 1398, somewhat outdated but a map of India in 1470 would be roughly similar in terms of how the Deccan and Malwa looked.

  Very helpful. Not ideal, as you say, but I think it would be worth adding until something better can be found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Some replies above -- no obligation to deal with my replies, but I want to make sure you're aware when I still have concerns in case you want to deal with them. One more point below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• "but was intimidated to raise the siege": if you want to keep "intimidate" it would have to be "intimidated into raising".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Second half of campaigns section

• "along with those of the recurring ally of Gujarat": suggest "again in alliance with Gujarat".
• "The main army of Berar under Yusuf Turk besieged Kherla, then subordinate to Malwa." We haven't yet been told who Yusuf Turk is or who or what Berar is, so the reader doesn't know if this is Mahmud's forces besieging a city or Malwa forces besieging a city. We find out in the next sentence but it should be clear as we read.
• "two defenders deceived the general such that they were able to murder him": a bit awkward; could we do "two defenders deceived and murdered the general". And who is the general? Yusuf Turk, I assume? If revising the previous sentence leads to him being described as the general then that's fine, otherwise I would make it clearer who this refers to.
• "though a diverting of Mahmud's forces had the opposite effect and ended the conflict". Vague; what does "a diverting of Mahmud's forces" mean? Does this just mean Mahmud led his troops to cut off the Khalji who gave up the combat?
• The concluding treaty seems odd -- despite Mahmud's victory the Malwans still get control of Kherla without apparently losing anything.
• "agreed to let his city be annexed to Mahmud": should this be "to the Bahmani Sultanate by Mahmud"? Or did Mahmud take personal overlordship of the city.
• "he reorganised the tarafs, ruled by a tarafdar, out of both the new and old territory held by the state": do we need to mention tarafdars here? It breaks the sentence up for not much value, particularly given that we've already linked the word above.
• "due to the accrued administrative burden and expansion of the Sultanate, in part caused by his own pursuits": suggest "due to the increased adminstrative burden and the expansion of the Sultanate's territory, both partly due to his own policies".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Poetry and letters

• "something which had been crucial to past Sultans but was expanded under Mahmud's ministership": why crucial? That implies more than just a desire on the part of the Sultans, but some actual value accruing from the contacts.
• 'Haroon Khan Sherwani calls him "one of the most prominent Persian writers of the period."' Can we introduce Sherwani? E.g. just "Historian Haroon Khan Sherwani calls him ..." would do.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Madrasa

• "The extensive library carried a collection of 3,000 manuscripts": this wording implies that the library contained other items as well. If not, perhaps "The library included 3,000 manuscripts", and if we need to mention that this is a large number for the time and place, say something like "..., an extensive collection for the era".
• I don't think we need the dimensions -- this is not the article about the madrasa itself, and the picture gives the reader a rough idea of the size.
• "expansive courtyard" is bit PEACOCK; how about just large, if we need to say it at all?
• "Its domes were reminiscent of those of Samarkand during the Timurid Renaissance." The source actually compares the domes to Mamluk Egypt, not Timurid Samarkand, but in any case I'd suggest making this a quote, since otherwise it's hard to avoid it sounding boastful: "Historian Richard Eaton describes it as an "extraordinary place", with "arches and colorful glazed tiles recalling Timurid Central Asia, and its minaret and domes reminiscent of Mamluk Egypt".
• "in an effort to give it a more presentable state" suggest "in an effort to improve its appearance".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

All done. Most of your questions should be answered in the diff, so the only things to mention are that yes, Belgaum was given directly to Mahmud as one of his fiefs (the other being Bijapur), but it was still a part of the Sultanate, and that Mahmud Khalji voluntarily raising his own siege was both from the threat of the Gujarati and Bahmani forces in the northwest and the forces of Jahan Turk in the south, which I forgot to add in. I also found a better map of the correct century to use instead. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The changes look good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Deccani-Afaqi conflict and execution

• "due to the drastic reforms issued by Mahmud": suggest being more specific -- the reader needs to know that this refers to the reforms mentioned earlier at the end of the campaigns section. This is one of the downsides to a topical rather than chronological organization; it's hard to avoid repeating information.
• "Plots arose among the Deccanis to usurp him from power": "usurp from" is not the usual usage; suggest "to oust him" or "remove him from power". To usurp means to take over power from someone, and it's the elimination of Mahmud's power that's the point here, not placing someone else in power.
• How did Yusuf Adil Shah's absence motivate the plot? Did the plotters fear him for some reason?
• You omit the story given (at least by Sherwani) of the Sultan's discovery of Mahmud's relatively humble way of life, after his execution. It sounds a bit hagiographical (which for a European saint would mean it was a later fabrication) so I would be hesitant to include it as fact, but if Eaton gives the story too and takes it at face value then it might be worth summarizing.
• "Though Mahmud asserted that the letter was forged, his statement was not given merit as the Sultan Muhammad Shah III was himself wary of Mahmud's growing power and influence." Suggest "Sultan Muhammad Shah III was wary of Mahmud's growing power and influence, and did not believe Mahmud's assertion that the letter was forged."
• I think the sequencing could be improved in this section. The first paragraph says there was a plot, he was executed, and the kingdom fell into disarray; then after the first sentence of the next paragraph we go back to the start and give details of the letters, Mahmud's failed defence, and his execution again. Can we put this into chronological order?
• Yusuf Adil Shah's leadership of the Afaqis is mentioned twice.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. I didn't see any mention in Eaton's text of this story of the sultan discovering Mahmud's charitableness, but I summarized that portion of Sherwani. Let me know if there's anything else I should change to the article if I want to renominate it. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there's a footnote out of place at the start of the last paragraph, but other than that I think this is fine to renominate for GA. We disagree on some matters of wording, and I don't think this is ready for FAC, if you decide you want to go there, but I think it should pass GA. I won't review it this time -- aside from the fact that you deserve a different pair of eyes, I've had a bit too much to do with the current wording to be eligible as an uninvolved reviewer. Best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Fixed. I don't plan to bring this to FAC anytime soon, but I'll renominate this for GA, thanks a lot for your help. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mahmud Gawan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Flemmish Nietzsche (talk · contribs) 12:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 15:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Content suggestions

• the chief minister, or Peshwa: of which state?
• Titles like "prime minister" are either double-capitalised ("Prime Minister") or all-lower-case. In most cases, we want the latter: see MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
  • Noting that this has not been completely done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Done. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• the village of Gawan in Persia: non-English terms should be italicised in lang templates, but this doesn't apply when it's simply the name of a person or place.
  • Noting that this has not generally been done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Done. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Generally speaking, we want to use the subject's full name on first mention in a paragraph, then "he" unless there's some cause for ambiguity, or after we have introduced a new person.
• "the Deccan" should generally be referred to as "the Deccan plateau": "Deccan" is an adjective.
• with a rank of 1,000: add horses?
• the easternmost portion of Andhra, Goa,: these are two different places, aren't they?
• Try to avoid paragraphs that are overly short: in general, three sentences is considered the minimum.
• leader of the Afaqis faction: the Afaqi faction, surely?
• with the Sultanate stretching from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal through the annexation of the Konkan, the easternmost portion of Andhra, the city of Goa, and the forming of a protectoral relationship with the Khandesh Sultanate: this isn't quite grammatical: I would suggest breaking it into two after Goa.
  • Split after "Bay of Bengal", couldn't find a good way to not have all acquisitions in one sentence, but "forming" was replaced with "establishment" which sounds more correct. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Quotes, like "the moderating element in the Triumvirate", need to be attributed in text.
  • Done. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• among the Deccanis and Foreigners: no capital on foreigners.
• This was done due to the increased adminstrative burden and the expansion of the Sultanate's territory, both partly due to his own policies: set up as a contradiction, but it isn't one -- his policies could (should?) have worked to reduce the administrative burden on the state. Also, typo in administrative.
  • Changed to "both partly a result of his own prior actions". Typo fixed. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• included correspondence between many heads of state of the era, who greatly respected him, including Mehmed II, in which the Sultan addressed him as “Spreader of the Board of kindness and goodness, the Right Hand of the Bahmani State, Trustee of the Religion of Muhammad", Abu Sa'id Mirza and Husayn Bayqara of the Timurid Empire, and Qaitbay of the Mamluk Sultanate.: another long sentence that needs to be cut to make grammatical sense.
  • Split at "respected him". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• On the "rank of 1000" -- we've said that it reflects a) revenue and b) horsemen, but haven't resolved which the number 1,000 actually refers to. 1000 what?
  • 1,000 horses and 1,000 units of currency; changed back to original "rank of 1000", this seems like a non-issue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  The issue is the GA criteria, specifically 1a: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience. At the moment, I can't see that anyone not already an expert in medieval Indian nobility would understand what a "rank of 1000" is, or be able to get a sense of what that means in practice (was that a high rank?). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Added "high-ranking" before "noble". A thousand horsemen seems like a lot to me. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  It does, but we need a better source than our own gut feeling, and Eaton doesn't specify that this was a high rank. We therefore need another source to put it into context. In a related matter, one of the footnotes in this area is cited to "p. 65n", which is a mistake -- we need to give the note number as "p. 65, n. 14". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sfn note issue fixed. How about rather than mentioning the rank at all outside the explanatory footnote, just say "Mahmud Gawan was made a noble and given charge of 1,000 calvalrymen", which is true as well. I don't think any source is going to explicitly say "he was made a high-ranking noble" as it is somewhat implied; the second sentence of my previous response was also not saying I made the previous change based off my own opinion, rather that I felt it would be somewhat obvious that 1,000 horsemen would make someone a high-ranking noble whether or not it is directly said in this own article; my previous edit was made as Eaton implicitly says "high-ranking"; "Clearly impressed by Gawan's credentials, the court made him a noble with a rank of 1,000"; if they were impressed, they surely would have given him a high rank. Nevertheless, the recent edit should make it so such worries are no longer necessary as the rank is no longer mentioned. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's supported by Eaton, so checks out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Images should have alt text for accessibility, per MOS:ALT.
• File:Complete view of Mahumad Gawan.JPG: India has freedom of panorama, so licensing is good.
• File:Raichur Doab.jpg: can we find a better map for this one? It's a not-great scan that's cut off oddly.
• The article is otherwise sparsely illustrated. Can any images of Mahmud, or of the other major players in his story, be found?

Sourcing

• Earwig shows no concerns for plagiarism, though I haven't yet gone through the sources in detail to check that.
• The article is overwhelmingly based on some very old sources -- most of the citations are to Sherwani's work from eighty or so years ago. On the other hand, Flatt 2015, which appears to be a modern scholarly work, is relegated to "Further reading" with no citations. I would advise adjusting the balance of material here: if there is something that can only be sourced from an old work (and we have good reason to believe that it has not been superseded by more recent scholarship), so be it, but otherwise we should focus the balance of citations upon work that reflects the current scholarly consensus.

Spot checks to follow once the above is addressed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Fixed.

2. Done, although I had the "Prime" capitalized for a reason, as Sherwani used the same style of capitalizing one word but not the other. [1]

Maybe so, but Sherwani doesn't have to follow the MoS, and we do. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

3. Fixed.

4. Some instances changed to full name, although there's no MOS guideline saying that the full name should be used at all after the first sentence of the lead; I also chose to use "Mahmud" rather than "Gawan" when referring to him when not using his full name as the former sounds more natural, akin to saying "Mahmood" for "Mahmood Shah" rather than "Shah" or "John" for "John of London" rather than "London".

It's good style rather than a MoS requirement -- we had a lot of consecutive sentences beginning with Mahmud did X, which was clunky and made it difficult to maintain the reader's flow. Absolutely correct on Mahmud rather than Gawan, I think, though you may wish to explain that choice with a footnote. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

5. No, the Deccan Plateau is almost always referred to as simply "the Deccan", especially in sources, rather than "the Deccan Plateau"; both are perfectly grammatical, as seen in the first sentence of the article on the plateau.

Yes, though if you see that article, you'll notice that "the Deccan" is almost totally avoided throughout it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

6. The rank corresponded to two things, not just horses, and what "1,000" meant I feel is sufficiently explained in the footnote.

It is, but ideally we want readers to be able to understand what we've written without flicking away to a footnote. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

7-10 Fixed.

12. Despite being not a great scan, it's the best relevant map I could find; most maps of the period, particularly in c:Category:Maps of 15th-century India, are either not of the right region or are less detailed.

13. No images/paintings of Mahmud, and I've looked quite a bit; the same goes for any relevant monarchs, and putting an image of coinage of a different monarch seems a bit of a stretch.

Sourcing: Yes, some of the sources are a bit on the older side, but as you suggested, provide info only found in those sources, mostly in Sherwani's 1942 and 1946 books on the Bahmani Sultanate and on Mahmud Gawan himself; the same level of detail is not given in any other sources I've encountered. I couldn't access that Flatt 2015 source, at least when I was writing this article. "Old" sources also aren't necessarily bad if they still prove to be reliable, which is the case for the Cambridge History of India and Sherwani, the latter increasingly so as the modern scholar Eaton (cited in this article with his chapter on Mahmud Gawan but in his other books as well) has extensively cited and sourced his work to Sherwani's many in-depth books on the Deccan. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If Eaton has cited Sherwani and included facts that we have cited to him here, we should switch the citation to Eaton -- that demonstrates that these ideas are still considered current, which a citation to a work from the 1940s doesn't. It's less that the work is likely to be unreliable and more that scholarship moves on, and a good article will reflect the academic understanding of the subject as it is written about in the present day. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

All of these concerns should be mostly addressed. Everything I could find that both Sherwani and Eaton cover I replaced mostly with content coming from the latter, and some new info not included in Sherwani's works was added as well from Eaton. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks

• A minor one, but some source titles need to be adjusted for capitalisation -- short words which are not nouns, verbs, pronouns or adjectives, such as of, are not capitalised.
• Note 6: left Gilan on the insistence of their mother: this is not supported by the cited source, which only says that their mother advised it, and they agreed. Sherwani does, however, use the word insisted.
• Mahmud had three sons, Abdullah, Ali, and Alaf Khan, and a brother who went to Mecca, all of whom were largely uninvolved in his later life in the Deccan Plateau.: this is not supported by the cited section. Some of the later pages do discuss the three sons, but I cannot see a judgement as stark as all of whom were largely uninvolved in his later life: the material we cite needs to be explicitly stated by the source, rather than inferred or extrapolated from it.
• He was offered ministerial positions in the courts of Khurasan and Iraq during these years, but declined them: I don't see this supported at all in the cited source.

Three misses from three checks is concerning, given that the article needs to demonstrate integrity between what is in the article and what is in the cited material. Could you please fix the above, or provide the direct quotation from the source if I've missed it, then give the article a thorough check-through to make sure that any similar issues are resolved -- specifically, that every citation points to pages which explicitly and unambiguously state the facts that are claimed in the article -- and then ping me again for a second round? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I will, although admittedly most of the first section (origins) was not my work, and was that of Mike Christie, who did a copyedit of this article after the first GA review and a rewrite of the first section, and thus the faults of those footnotes are not entirely mine. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

A GA nomination is a review of the article, not of the editor -- please don't take any issues with the article as comments on your own efforts or competence. All that's happening here is assessing whether the article yet meets the GA criteria, and, if not, if and how it can reasonably be made to do so in the span of this process. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Should be all fixed. The "Khurasan and Iraq" statement was actually supported by the provided footnote on p.60 "during his travels he had declined offers to serve as chief minister in the courts of Khurasan and Iraq", but a footnote to Sherwani was added as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Second batch:

• Sultan Muhammad Shah III was wary of Mahmud's growing power and influence, and did not believe Mahmud's assertion that the letter was forged. The sultan drunkenly ordered him executed on 5 April 1481: drunkenly is not supported by the source, nor is the suggestion that Mahmud argued that the letters (which the source does not definitively say existed) were forged.
• Note 66 is cited to Sherwani 1942, p. 337f, but the source only has 267 pages.
• The material cited to note 65 (and buried him, though still in a small tomb disproportionate to the authority his rank had held) isn't at all mentioned in that part of the source. It is multi-cited to Yazdani, who does say that the tomb was inadequate to his rank, but doesn't credit Muhammad Shah with burying him.
• One year after the death of Mahmud, the Sultan also died at the age of 29. It was said that Mahmud haunted the Sultan during the last days of his life as he used to scream on his death bed that he was slaying him: I can't get a preview of note 69, but note 70, which is multi-cited, gives the Sultan's age as 28, and tells the story differently, as a single shout near the moment of death. We also have close paraphrase of he was slaying him from the source.

I have now checked two sets of sources and am consistently finding concerns about WP:TSI. I asked you on the last set to make sure that this was sorted throughout, and you affirmed that it was -- as such, I don't think I can pass the article without manually checking each citation myself, which is not a reasonable thing to do in the span of a GA nomination. As such, I am failing the nomination: I would advise checking through the sourcing carefully, to make sure that there are no remaining issues of TSI or direct copying, before re-nominating. Best of luck with your work on the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:50, 25 August 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.