Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurra-yi Khuttali/archive2

Hurra-yi Khuttali

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this article after it failed the first nomination only because of a lack of engagement from reviewers. This article is about a minor figure in the history of the Ghaznavid dynasty, the dynasty that ruled what is modern day Afghanistan and eastern Iran. Hurra-yi Khuttali was a princess from this dynasty and is regarded as the most politically active woman of her era because she interfered in the succession of her brother. Small details are known about her life, therefore the article itself is quite short. Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThaesOfereode

Hi Amir, it looks like you have Arabic transliterations in the {{Lang}} template. Unless the Arabic script is used, you should use {{translit}} instead. Other issues below:

"free woman" → 'free woman' per MOS:SINGLE (also want single quotes around "agnomen").
- Done
Deitalicize established loan words like "amir", "harem", and "sultan". All of these are common enough terms in English that they don't need italics.
- Done
First instance of amir should be delinked to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE violation (i.e., before Mas'ud of Ghazna)
- Done
Any reason you picked the spelling "Seljuq" over the more common "Seljuk"?
- Force of habit; changed it to Seljuk

More to follow later. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ThaesOfereode, would you be interested to continue this review? Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amir. Yes, my personal life has become a little busy, but I should be able to get to this over the coming days. If I don't get to this by Wednesday, ping me again. In the meantime, it looks like your use of the {{lang}} template should be changed to the {{translit}} whenever the Arabic script is not used; as I understand, it will render oddly for screen readers. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; changed the templates. Amir Ghandi (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaesOfereode Reminder. Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, some thoughts:

You shouldn't replace hamzas/ayins with apostrophes; in names like Masʽud, it looks like you may have thought they should be straightened in accordance with MOS:CQ, but they should not be. Looks like the pipes can be easily removed. In other cases, the templates {{hamza}} and {{ayin}} can be added as appropriate for Arabic names.

Fixed Mas'ud's name.

Looks like the Maʾmunid page uses a hamza (not an ayin as in Masʽud; I've fixed this throughout as I may have been unclear), but I'm not sure that's correct; I don't speak Farsi, can you advise? If so we should expect it in Maʾmun's name as well. Same with Abuʾl-Fadl.

Yes, all three use hamzas. I'll add them to the artilce

Okay, done

In footnote C, "Khatun" should be placed in a {{translit}} template. I'll let you decide whether it should be Farsi or something else.

Done

Consider a hatnote that says that the subject should be referred to as "Hurra" not "Hurra-yi" (my first guess) and that "Khuttali" should not be used as a surname. Thomas Aquinas's page has something similar for reference.

Added

For that matter, the name section should probably tell the reader what "-yi" means. Feminine suffix? Construct state?

I don't have the source to add that unfortunately

Bummer. No problem.

Consider linking theology.

Done

which Ma'mun conceded to → to which Ma'mun conceded is more natural

Done

What is a "patriotic" rebellion? Aren't they all from the POV of the rebels? Unless there is compelling reason to keep it, I think the use of "patriotic" here should be removed.

Deleted it

Mahmud wished to retaliate the killing → Mahmud sought retribution for the killing is less awkward. (And remove the comma after "brother-in-law").

Done

Link concubines.

Done

"~~along with~~ her younger brother"

Done

What Turkic military commanders? This alliance is not established for the reader. Did the Ghaznavids ally themselves with other Turkic tribes? Which? When? Why? Why did these leaders find themselves scheming (?) in the Ghaznavid court?

I meant the commanders of Ghaznavid military who happened to be Turkic. Deleted it for clarity

What was Masʽud "preoccupied" with in the west? Where in the west? Baghdad? Rome? Lisbon? Also, probably don't need the parentheses here.

Added and deleted the parentheses

In footnote E, {{translit}} for "vali ahd" should be Persian rather than Arabic, right? Is "b." short for "bin"? Not sure I understand the parenthetical about the passive voice; there are only two passive sentences. In any case, the parentheses can be dropped; they're not really doing anything.

Added translit for vali ahd; changed b. to ibn. The passive voice is more present when you read the text in Farsi. I deleted the whole sentence for clarity.

Mas'ud lacked political shrewdness, therefore, Hurra is suspected to have influenced [...] → Mas'ud lacked political shrewdness; Hurra is suspected to have influenced [...]

Done

Any reason footnote G is a footnote? Seems pertinent enough to Hurra's decision-making to include it in the prose. If so, recommend linking oases.

Brought to the body

No need for a comma after conquests in India. Delink India in favor of linking conquests in India with Ghaznavid campaigns in India unless I missed this link being made prior.

Done

WP:SEAOFBLUE violation with Oghuz Turkoman should be corrected.

Deleted Oghuz

Link caravans as appropriate (perhaps Camel train or Caravan (travellers)?)

Done

Why did you pipe Seljuk dynasty to Seljuk when dynasty is the very next word?

Amended

Comma after his other aunts.

Done

Footnote H should be prose.

Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure I understand

Sorry, I mean bring this to the body rather than leave as a footnote.

Might link India in the sentence following what is currently footnote H, provided you delinked it as per my previous comment.

Done

Remove comma after 1041.

Done

realis mood – Okay, so this is more of a category of moods rather than one mood. If you mean the indicative mood, this sentence doesn't make much sense. If you mean another (energetic mood?), it should be specified.

Changed with imperative mood (per the source).

contemporary historian – Can this just be historian or at least historian of [insert specific title of period studied]? My first thought upon reading was that Amirsoleimani was a contemporary of Hurra.

Changed to modern historian

Good page all around, but there are some issues. Let me know what you think. Tremendously interesting topic. Looking forward to seeing more "women in bronze". ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

As always, the following are suggestions, not demands:

"considered the most prominent woman in Ghaznavid politics" this is not quite what the body says—that an action she took was the most prominent by a woman in Ghaznavid politics.
- Changed it
Not sure if "in modern Afghanistan" needs to be in the lead.
- Deleted
Two consecutive sentences starting "she was" could be combined.
- Done
"a direct cause for" "a direct cause of" sounds more natural.
- Done
"who was deemed unfit" this omits that she was one who deemed Muhammad unfit.
- Deleted
" Her letter was one of the main reasons for Mas'ud's usurpation of the throne." a bit vague, you could go into more detail about what actually happened.
- Done
"the Ghaznavid dynasty, who were a dynasty of Turkic origin" could be simplified to something like "the Ghaznavids, a dynasty of Turkic origin..."
- Done
"she sought to learn sciences" this is slightly ungrammatical, probably needing a "the", and also a little unclear—which sciences?
- This was originally 'other sciences' beside theology, but one reviewer commented that theology is not a science, so I omited the 'other'. I'll add 'other' again since the source itself considers theology a science.
The map provided is not that useful—a better one would show the Ghaznavid territories, which are referred to more often, instead of intricate details of Khwarazm. File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg seems ideal, if you can find a source that verifies it.
- Done
"The latter" is unnecessary—it wouldn't be the person who's died, would it?
- Replaced with 'He'.
"patriotist" is not a word, is "patriotic" meant? If yes, I suggest "nationalist" instead as more suitable.
- I myself prefer 'patriotic' since the source uses it
"the rebels killed Ma'mun because of his submission" if the whole rebellion broke out because of the submission, I would suggest mentioning that at the start of the sentence, not the end.
- I reworded the sentence. Thoughts?
You could mention that Muhammad and his brother were twins.
- Done
"inviting him" is a bit oddly phrased, would suggest "encouraging him" or similar.
- Done
"Mas'ud marched east to claim the throne, and continued to receive letters from Hurra and his mother regarding the situation in Ghazna. On his arrival in 1030 in Ghazna, Mas'ud captured Muhammad and took the throne." these sentences are quite clunky; try to trim to reduce duplication.
- Done
"who had assumed total power in Ghazna after Muhammad's ascension to become the real power behind Muhammad's government" this also essentially says the same thing twice.
- Amended
The last paragraph of the "Biography" section needs a thorough copyedit—it really lacks clarity.
- Done
Too many commas in the last sentence of "Assessments".
- Amended

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

Support - I seem to be the only one to have completed a review last time around, so here is my support again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

"Abu al-Hasan died at an uncertain date between 1006 to 1010 and was succeeded by his brother, Ma'mun II." - If I'm reading the source correctly, the source says The date of ʿAlī’s death and the accession of his brother Abu’l-ʿAbbās Maʾmūn II is not definitely known, but must have been ca. 399/1008-9
"He, with the same intent as his brother, married Hurra in 1015" - source says 1015/1016 which doesn't seem to be quite the same as what's in the article?
- When I was writing the article, I based the dated on the dates in the Encyclopaedia of the World of Islam article, which uses the Hijri calendar. I had to use an app that converts the dates, that is why the year is specified. For example, in the article the year of Hurra's second marriage is recorded as 406 AH, which in turn could be converted to 1015. I'll correct the date now.
"a dynasty of Turkic origin whose realm included modern day Afghanistan, eastern Iran and northwestern India" - source specifies Baluchistan, rather than "eastern Iran"; is this really the best way to phrase this, as from what I can tell eastern Iran is more expansive than Baluchistan?
- From the source: "GHAZNAVIDS, an Islamic dynasty of Turkish slave origin (366-582/977-1186), which in its heyday ruled in the eastern Iranian lands, briefly as far west as Ray and Jebāl; for a while in certain regions north of the Oxus, most notably, in Kᵛārazm; and in Baluchistan." The source doesn't single out Baluchistan, it is mentioned with other regions.

I was going to check Bosworth 1963 as well, but the Internet Archive is acting up again today. I'm a bit concerned about source-text after some issues came up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sabuktigin/archive1. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon

Just a few drive-by comments from a complete lay person:

would be nice if the opening sentence would mention which modern-day part of the world we're talking about
ruler of Ghazna --> links to the city of Ghazni, or should it perhaps go to Ghazni Province?
- I believe I've already linked Ghazna both in the lead and in the body
She used two nisbas --> perhaps help the reader out a bit by explaining what directly in the textthat is, rather than forcing them to click through or guess that footnote c explains it
- Done
recorded by Shabankara'i --> add a description, just like British orientalist Clifford Edmund Bosworth
- Done
by Abu'l-Fadl Bayhaqi (d. 1077) a secretary --> comma missing
- Done
Amir Mas'ud of Ghazna --> 1) should Amir be linked? is it a title like emir? 2) am I right that this is the newphew? Better to say so, plus when the nephew is introduced I would refer to him by his full name and title
- 1) to prevent WP:SEAOFBLUE, no, and yes it is the Persianized version of emir. 2) Yes, done
since the Ma'amunids --> is there a stray "a" here, given that it is the Ma'munid dynasty?
- Indeed, amended
However, he was killed --> he is a bit ambiguous (and the subsequent his)
- Mentioned the name
Hurra, along with her younger brother, Yusuf ibn Sabuktigin --> is that the name of her brother or a different person? do we need some commas here?
- Moved the comma to the end
the Sultan --> the sultan (if I interpret MOS:JOBTITLE correctly)
- Done
the Seljuks --> who are they? what happened to the Turkomans?
- My mistake, the Seljuks are a Turkoman dynasty that lead the other Turkomans. I replaced 'Seljuk tribes' with 'Seljuk dynasty.'
footnote h: why not put this in the main text?
- Its a hinderance to the flow of the text
she is metaphorically covering their shame --> I would add attribution here
- Done
as it was Bayhaqi's intentions --> singular or plural? and did Bayyhaqi state this intention or is this an interpretation by Amirsoleimani?
- Reworded the sentence
Iranian historian, Shirin Bayani --> no comma here
- Done
The Boswell sources in ibliography should be order by time, not randomly
- Done

That's all I have. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

It was most likely... Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)?
- That makes two 'according to's in one paragraph. I don't think that's pleasing to read. Also, could not find anything to expand on that
...an honorific laqab 'agnomen'... I think the three non-cotidian terms are unneccessary; furthermore, the term "agnomen" is possibly misleading. Why not "a laqab (honorific)" with links? If you think all three terms are to be mentioned, the last term ("agnomen") should be enclosed in brackets.
- Done
~~... and not her actual name Is this necessary? If not, delete it. If yes, could you add a link (because for me the laqab is also an "actual" name used in souces)?~~
- Deleted
~~Do we know what is the origin of her second nisba (Kaliji)? If we do not know it, we should make it clear.~~
- No, and wouldn't that be an unsourced edition? None of the sources even mention that the origin of Kaliji is unknown.
~~An explanation for khatun?~~
- Done
Could you expand the first section's second paragraph to avoid a one-sentence paragraph? For instance, it could be stated in a separate sentence that the only source contains only sparse references, and we could also be informed that it is reliable or unreliable. Based on section "Assessments and historiography", I understand one of her letters has also been preserved in a manuscript - is it the same source?
~~Mention the period of reign of Mas'ud (as it is mentioned in the first sentence of the following section in connection with her father).~~
- Done
~~...is a probable candidate Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)?~~
- Done for the attribution, sadly can't expand it further
~~This marriage would have secured an alliance... Why future-in-the-past?~~
~~Hurra may have been taken hostage by them. Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)? Please also read my comment below.~~
Hurra may have been taken hostage by them. Mahmud threatened the rebels with invasion unless they released Hurra. Contradiction? (The first sentence implies that she may have not been taken hostage, but the second sentence says that she had been seized.) Perhaps the two sentences could be rephrased to contain only facts ("Hurra was seized/imprisoned/prevented from returning to her homeland/...).
~~...after Mahmud's death, she was entrusted with the care of his wives... Why not widows?~~
- Changed to widows
~~...who was crowned in Ghazna... Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying this statement?~~
- Bosworth: "...Muhammad succeeded in Ghazna according to his father's will"
  - ~~His coronation is not verified. I am not sure that Ghaznavids were indeed crowned.~~
    - Okay I'll delete it then
~~..., which was dependent on the powerful leadership of the sultan Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying this statement?~~
- Bosworth: "...Ghaznavid empire was basically dependent on the military leadership and executive talent of its Sultan"
~~...encouraging him to take the throne while she and the other women of the court were confided in the Citadel of Ghazni I do not understand the relevance of the part beginning with "while she...".~~
- Deleted
He also imprisoned Ali b. Il-Arsalan Qarib, the al-hajib al-kabir (commander-in-chief) of the army, who had become the real power behind Muhammad's government. Is this relevant in the article's context? I would delete it.
- Deleted
...Hurra is suspected to have influenced By whom?
~~The region of Khorasan housed rich oases, centres of industry and crafts and important trade routes. Therefore it was an integral part of the empire. Therefore?~~
- Deleted
~~File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg: 1. Explain that Mahmud was her brother in the caption (as you introduce similarly Mas'ud I in the other picture's caption). 2. What is the source of the map?~~
- 1) done 2) map is compliant with the Cambridge History of Iran map of the Ghaznavids

Borsoka (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- - I added the source to the file. Excellent article, so I support its promotion. Thank you for your work. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]