Talk:Muhammad I of the Eretnids
Latest comment: 5 months ago by ModernDayTrilobite in topic Requested move 15 June 2024
 | Muhammad I of the Eretnids has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 12, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Feedback from New Page Review process
editI left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for the article!.
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 17:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Spot checked refs 6a, 6b, 9, and 10, which all appeared to pass (although in the case of 10, my lack of fluency in Turkish and the limits of online translators has left me with some additional questions).
- 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):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Is the Commons description of the second image a copyright violation? The image itself is allowed as a photographic representation of a two-dimensional work of art over a hundred years after the author's death, but it was originally taken from a private website, along with the description, the latter of which should be protected as far as I can tell.
- Yes, I think the description itself is likely a copyright violation. I am not really sure about the image itself, but I think it may not be in the public domain as well. I have removed the image just in case. Currently, there isn't any discussion concerning the works produced under Muhammad's rule. (I think I tried to find sources about that before to no success.) Therefore, the image doesn't add much and is slightly out of context. After this review, I will deal with the copyright issue. Aintabli (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Is the Commons description of the second image a copyright violation? The image itself is allowed as a photographic representation of a two-dimensional work of art over a hundred years after the author's death, but it was originally taken from a private website, along with the description, the latter of which should be protected as far as I can tell.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- My comments are below.
- Pass/Fail:
General comments:
- Shouldn't the Turkish rendition of his name be provided in the first sentence of the lead? Also, why is his name given as Muhammad instead of the Turkish Mehmed, as it usually is in articles on Turks with the name.
- @An anonymous username, not my real name:, Muhammad appears to be more common, and the Eretnids were not exactly a Turkish dynasty. His father Eretna is described as an Uyghur by most contemporary sources and was part of the Mongol tradition.
- The lit template does not accompany a lang template.
- I guess this is about Köse Peyghamber. I added a lang template there, but it is not precisely the Turkish spelling.
Lead / word choice:
- His son is described as being a "minor" when crowned the new sultan, which besides being anachronistic, is not mentioned in the body. Should probably be removed.
- Done
Though, Muḥammad's rule did not fare well as he turned out to be debaucherous and treated his siblings unfairly.
This should say "however" instead of "though" and "behaved debaucherously" instead of "turned out to be debaucherous".
- Done
Nevertheless, Muḥammad was deposed by his emirs, and his half-brother Jafar reigned for a year.
"Nevertheless" doesn't work here. I am tempted to say that it should be replaced with "however", but that would make three "howevers" in one section. Could the whole sentence be reworded to make this flow better?
- I reworded that part and added a new piece of information that would perhaps help the flow: [1]
taking refuge in the Karamanids
In → amongst.
- Done
The governor Ibn Kurd
Of the Sivas?
- That's right. Added "of Sivas".
enthroning his son Ali.
Exactly whose son is Ali? Elsewhere it says he is Eretna's.
- Wow. Thanks for noticing. That was a mistake.Right before this article, I was working on Eretna, which was a lot denser, so somehow, I referred to Ali as Eretna's son, which should have been Muhammad. So, Ali is Muhammad's son and Eretna's grandson. That was a mistake.
Muḥammad was about 25 years old on his death.
"At the time of his death" would read better.
- Done
Eretna's son ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī succeeded him after his murder. According to Karamanname, Muḥammad also had an older son named Eretna.
So was Ali Muhammad's brother or son? And who is Eretna older than, if he is an older son? And I assume there are two different Eretnas in this article, given that Muhammad's father had the same name.
- That's a mistake I made that led to the aforementioned confusion regarding whose son Ali is. "Eretna" in that quote should have been Muhammad, which I have corrected. To clarify, Muhammad is the son of Eretna, the founder of the state. Ali was Muhammad's son and successor. Muhammad is also reputed to have had a second son named "Eretna", same name as his father.
While he could reclaim the throne for some time,
Suggest rewording to "while he held the throne for some time".
- Done
However, he is not mentioned by any other sources of that era.
If there are "other" sources, then what is the original source in question?
- The source that attests Muhammad's son Eretna is Karamanname as pointed out in the second sentence. But I mentioned Karamanname again as a clarification. Aintabli (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a nice article; it just needs some work before it can be promoted. I changed a few small things myself that didn't feel worth bringing up here. I'm putting it on hold for now. Good luck. Anonymous 17:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, it looks good now. About the image, the image itself is probably acceptable based on the tag, even if the description isn't, although I'm no expert in that area. In any case, it's no longer in the article, and since the article meets all of the criteria, I have passed it. Good work! Anonymous 21:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 15 June 2024
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to Muhammad I of the Eretnids. While the level of enthusiasm for this title was admittedly tepid, it appears to have been viewed as acceptable by all participants, who found it to be a clear and unambiguous option. No prejudice to future RMs on this topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I → Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad (Eretnid) – Current title is confusing. There was no "Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad II". He is just Muhammad I of the Eretnids. There was a Muhammad II, but he wasn't a Ghiyath al-Din. Srnec (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose the proposed new title. The current title and the regnal number are from Bosworth's New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual page 234. We've had a prior discussion here. There is no other non-ambiguous title used in the sources. I don't also favor the usage of parentheses here since it is uncommon for royalty articles and is not based on the relevant guidelines. If there should be a move, I believe we should keep the regnal number (as Muhammad II Chelebi won't make sense otherwise). My suggestion would be "Muhammad I of Eretna" or "Muhammad I of the Eretnids". Aintabli (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't agree that this is what Bosworth calls him. He lists him as "Muhammad I b. Eretna, Ghiyath al-Din". In the context of a list, it is clear that he is Muhammad I of his dynasty. He is not "Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I". The article titles are not part of lists. They have to stand alone and currently I don't think the meaning of the title is clear. I would be okay with Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I ibn Eretna of Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad ibn Eretna as alternatives. "Muhammad I of the Eretnids" is acceptable, but I think somewhat unusual in form. Srnec (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that adding "son of" (ibn), significantly deviates from the general convention followed, and so it is something I would steer away from when there is an alternative. I would be okay with "Muhammad I of the Eretnids" instead. Aintabli (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- One more option: Although this is not something I have realized sooner and thus not have added to any of the articles on Eretnid royalty, the realm Eretnids ruled over was apparently still known as Rum: [2][3][4][5]... Solely for the purpose of disambiguation, instead of "the Eretnids", it can be "Rum" (thus "Muhammad I of Rum"), which could be historically more accurate. I think this would be less "unusual in form". What would be your opinion on this? Aintabli (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't agree that this is what Bosworth calls him. He lists him as "Muhammad I b. Eretna, Ghiyath al-Din". In the context of a list, it is clear that he is Muhammad I of his dynasty. He is not "Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I". The article titles are not part of lists. They have to stand alone and currently I don't think the meaning of the title is clear. I would be okay with Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I ibn Eretna of Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad ibn Eretna as alternatives. "Muhammad I of the Eretnids" is acceptable, but I think somewhat unusual in form. Srnec (talk) 19:30, 15 June 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.