Talk:Yakub I of Germiyan/GA1

GA Review

Passed. asilvering (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: asilvering (talk · contribs) 23:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead

Right now the lead is pretty disjointed. The first and last sentence are good and in the right place. Most of the rest I'm less sure about, especially During the thirteenth century, members of Germiyan family fought for the Sultan of Rum against the forces of Baba Ishak in 1239 and Jimri in 1277., which doesn't seem like it belongs in the lead at all. Can you try to rework this? -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aintabli just checking that you've seen this comment asilvering (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen it. I have been relatively busy in the last few days. I will address this bit tomorrow or the day after. Aintabli (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, just wanted to make sure we weren't both waiting for each other. -- asilvering (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, I have removed the aforementioned sentence and added a bit more key pieces of information about Yakub's reign. Does it look good now? Aintabli (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like having the regnal dates in there, good call! I removed the bit about the coin (I think that's of interest, but not lead-level) and did some minor prose edits. I thought I'd already done the source check here but I see I didn't check it off or query anything, so give me a moment to double-check that, and then I think we're good to promote this. -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did a few more prose edits for readability, but some of these were a bit interpretive, so please check this edit to see if I introduced any errors.

I did get stuck in Following the elimination of the Hamidid and Eshrefid begs amidst Ilkhanid involvement in Anatolia in 1325, Germiyan attempted to seize the territory of Alaşehir, Denizli, and Menteshe. Moreover, Yakub's son-in-law, who was the lord of Afyonkarahisar, fled to Kütahya from the Ilkhanid officer Eretna, who was assisting the Ilkhanid governor of Anatolia, Timurtash, to enact authority over the local rulers of western Anatolia. It looks from the source that it was Timurtash who eliminated the Hamidid and Eshrefid begs, but it also looks to me like the source is saying that Timurtash wanted to seize Germiyan, Alashehir, Denizli, and Menteshe, not that Yakub wanted to seize the last three? What's going on here? -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, the original version, which you have quoted above, implied that Germiyan took advantage of the downfall of the local states at the hands of the Ilkhanids and tried to seize their territory. The Turkish version of the source could be read both ways, but after checking it again, your explanation appears to be the correct one, so I have changed it accordingly. Aintabli (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! That was my last question. Thanks so much for all your work on these articles! -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Upon Masʿūd's end, however, Yaʿḳūb, whose realm extended until Ankara accepted vassalage under Kayḳobād III. I can't make grammatical sense of this sentence. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded that part. I hope it now makes sense.
The large paragraph under "Reign" seems to be about many different things at once. Can you break it up a bit more? -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Divided that part into new paragraphs. Moved some of the information, so that the first three paragraphs are on the conflicts and skirmishes he was involved in. The last paragraph is about most other aspects of his reign. Aintabli (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kaykhusraw II faced a major defeat by the Mongol Empire at the Battle of Köse Dağ in 1243. With the division of the Mongol Empire, Anatolia came under the influence of the Ilkhanate, Since these sentences are right next to each other, it gives the impression that the Ilkhanate ruled Anatolia after 1243, but that's not the case. What's the relationship between this battle and the division of the Mongol Empire? Do you even have to mention it in this article if the important bit is just "Germiyan becomes part of the Ilkhanate"? -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now clarified that the defeat marked the start of the sultanate's (Rum) subordinate position (vassal/tributary state) to the Mongol Empire. The latter was later divided so that the sultanate came under the Ilkhanate. It would not be accurate to summarize it as Germiyan becoming part of the Ilkhanate, because they were not a state back then. None of the sources specifically mention that as far as I remember. The Mongol expansion in Anatolia, however, is important to outline how the Seljuk rule gradually dwindled. Germiyan is one of those states that rose during the downfall of the Seljuks.
He possessed 40,000 cavalry and although exaggerated, was able to raise 200,000 troops in times of war. I'm not sure what is being exaggerated here? -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the opinion of Varlık, which I have now specified in the article. Aintabli (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yakub is known to have exchanged letters with the Mamluk Sultanate in 1340. Is this encyclopedia-level important? I can see why a historian would care but I'm not sure it's meaningful in this context. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an evidence that shows he was alive in 1340. It is especially significant, considering the lack of clear records on his (later) rule.
Moreover, Yakub's son-in-law, who was the lord of Afyonkarahisar, fled to Kütahya from the Ilkhanid officer Eretna. When Yakub was about to engage in a battle with Eretna, the latter was called back by his master Timurtash in 1327. Unclear why these people were fighting in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Aintabli (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

Could you expand the "background" section a bit? Right now I'm not sure this really helps anyone who needs the background. I have to admit it doesn't mean much to me, and I'm not unfamiliar with the Sultanate of Rum. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit more context for the history of the Sultanate of Rum. How does it look now? I might further expand it in proportion to the meat of the article (if I also end up expanding it). Aintabli (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I see that Varlık, Mustafa Çetin (2013) has a reasonably extensive bibliography - more than this article has currently. Would any of these be useful to expand this article?
Not exactly, because most of them are primary sources. Some are secondary sources but about different states, and thus are tangential. I have added one source (Uzunçarşılı), which is also listed there, and it has some interesting new information.
There's no reference to Bosworth, which is in the bibliography. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. I think it contained no new information, so that may be why I never cited it and forgot to remove it.
Al-ʿUmarī describes him as the most powerful Turkish emir, being the suzerain of many of his neighbors, with the Byzantine Empire paying him 100,000 pieces of gold each year. Can you clarify the source for this with a footnote? -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should have now been solved. Aintabli (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I'm not convinced this map is based on a reliable source. Are there any others available? -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no. Most are unsourced. And this map was one of the few that referred to a source, although not the best. I have now removed it and replaced it with a custom location map with most of the towns mentioned in the body.

In lieu of an image of Yakub, which I assume can't be found, are there any interesting, relevant images you could add to this article? A photograph of a location, a historic building, anything like that? -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is supposed to be a coin specimen that survived to this date, but I have not seen its photo on the Internet as of yet. Regardless, licensing could remain a problem. There isn't anything that pertains to this specific ruler as far as I know. But I have added a photo of Kütahya, which is known as the capital of the Germiyanids. Does it look good now?

I'll leave you with those for now. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I think I have addressed your points for the moment, but let me know if you would like me to further work on any of them. Aintabli (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more, here and on Yakub II. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.