Talk:Tuqaq/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 05:14, 18 August 2021 (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):

   
   * "...was a subaşy (chief of the army)..." It seems as though the honorific "bey" trumps the "subasy" title? If so, then perhaps it should be included in the lede.

* ""Tuqaq Temur Yalig" literally means "iron bow" or "with an iron bow" in old Turkic language." His full name is written above as "Duqaq"...Tuqaq should be the favored spelling, as it's the article's title.

*"Little is known about Tuqaq or his early activities as most of the details of his life are uncertain and come from later written or oral sources, composed particularly after the Battle of Dandanaqan." First half of the sentence should have at least one comma splicing it up.

*"...since arrow and bow were considered a sign of sovereignty in Oghuz culture. " Not sure of the contextual meaning of sovereignty here.

*"The Persian epic Maliqnameh (Book of Kings) mentions a warrior called Tuqaq who served a Khazar Khagan (ruler)." If he served the Khazars prior to the Oghuz, perhaps that chapter of his life is better suited for the "Origins" chapter?

*"...to join the Seljuq's tribe after it left Oghuz Yabgu for a new homeland in Transoxiana." Not sure if we need "the" before Seljuq here.

*As for his feud with the yabghu, that seems a pretty clear indicator that he himself was Muslim. Is that not the consensus?

*"After his death, his son, Seljuq, was named..." No need for the commas around "Seljuq"

*As for the "See also" section, I'd say anything that is hyperlinked within the prose doesn't need to be included.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   References are well-suited

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Given the relative paucity of details, this article is expansive enough

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   Both photos are applicable

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very fine, informative, concise article. Just some minor issues as stated above.

QatarStarsLeague (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

QatarStarsLeague, thank you very much for your delightful work and specific suggestions. All of them were thoroughly implemented some time ago, and I just wanted to remind you that I'm looking forward for your further remarks. Thank you once again and take care! --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 04:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)