Talk:Merv/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) 21:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far from a GA with much of the content being dubious, unresolved tags, ample violations of core-policies, and most of the authoritative monographs not consulted.

I will pick out four particular examples —

(a) Denoting the Mongol campaign as one of the bloodiest genocides, in lead.

Of the used sources: Bonner is an art-historian, with expertise in geometries employed by Islamic artists. Goldstein is a professor of IR, with no training in any kind of history. Naimark is a professor of Eastern European Studies. None has any expertise in Mongols.

Notwithstanding the credibility of sources, the line runs afoul of WP:DUE - most of the sources (esp. standard textbooks) refrain from such extraordinary claims.

(b) peacefully took over Merv under the leadership of Tughril—the Ghaznavid sultan Mas'ud I was extremely unpopular in the city — an unsourced line.

Peacock (2015; EUP) writes,

The conquest of the great city of Merv, for instance, is not even distinctly recorded; the last Ghaznavid garrison is mentioned in 428/1037, but later the same year sources allude to Chaghrı’s presence there. [..]
In the absence of Ghaznavid authority, it was left to urban notables to decide how to react. Some towns, such as Abiward, seem to have defected to the Seljuks on the initiative of these local elites. Years of over-taxation, religious oppression, and Mas‘ud’s own personal venality and incompetence meant that Ghaznavid governance was regarded with suspicion and sometimes outright hostility by many groups in Khurasan.
At the same time, urban society in Khurasan was fragmented by factionalism. A decision made by the elite – or one group of it – to accept Seljuk authority might be opposed by other social groups. In Merv, Herat, and Nishapur, the Seljuks faced popular rebellions which seem to have been instigated by the lower social classes, and it was these, rather than Ghaznavid forces, which on occasion temporarily evicted the Seljuks.

The drafting of the history is too simplistic and reductive. We are not writing for a K-9 audience.

(c) However, starting from 1118, it served as the capital of the whole empire.

Ref 33 cites p. 33-47 but quotes from p. 74. Notwithstanding (what might be) a typo, this is a misrepresentation — did the Sultanate of Iraq (with all its complexities, as discussed in the following pages) obliviate into thin air or cease claiming themselves as the Seljuks?

(d) The city was notable as a home for immigrants from the Arab lands and those from Sogdia and elsewhere in Central Asia

What does the source write?

In 673 Khurasan, the 'eastern lands', became a separate governorate, of which Merv served as the capital and as the all-important seat of the governor. It was thus the source of patronage. This was precisely the time that eastern Iran was heavily settled by Arab immigrants. Naturally they clustered around the major seats of power, such as Merv and Nishapur.

You need to paraphrase the sources but only after understanding them so as to not rob them of their contexts.

(e) and great-grandson Ahmad Sanjar (sultan from 1118 to 1157) were buried at Merv, the latter at the Tomb of Ahmad Sanjar.

This is highly contested. See this website (which is not a RS) but is good enough.

Long paragraphs are sourced to websites like "Islam Story", "Tourstoturkmenistan", "Asthabharati". The history section is largely a cluster of factoids, most of which are either dubious or incorrect.

Tertius Chandler's demographic estimates are nonsensical and multiple historians have criticized his usage of sources.

The years from the fall of Sanjar to the Mongol invasion are not covered. As is the reconstruction after invasion.

As HistoryofIran said, there is almost nothing on pre-Islamic Merv.

There are bound volumes on the topic!

The entire section on "Uzbeks in Merv and its final destruction" is sourced to a >150 year old chronicle.

There are many better sources, compliant with WP:HISTRS.

The entire section on "Nineteenth century" is sourced to a news article, which says nothing relevant. The other one is supposedly a 2008 work by Martin Ewans - actually, it is a collection of century-old primary sources.

Rewrite with better sources - Ch. 9 of Alexander Morrison's The Russian Conquest of Central Asia provides some coverage and pointer to relevant sources.

Climate section is unsourced.

TrangaBellam (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran, I think the article needs radical improvements and as it currently stands, is far from GA standards. Would like to hear your opinion. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✗ Fail - GA status is impossible without radical improvements. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]