Talk:Ali of Dulkadir/GA1

GA Review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 13:42, 11 July 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

Nominator: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 19:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it could be a very interesting article about a leader that I was not aware of before. At a cursory glance, it looks as it is is close to meeting the Good Article criteria. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aintabli: I see that you have been editing since the nomination. Can you please tell me when you would like to start my review? simongraham (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are just minor tweaks in wording. Feel free to start the review when you're available. I don't mind editing prior to or during the review. Aintabli (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aintabli. I will start my assessment now.

Comments

Overall, the standard of the article is high.
It is of sufficient length, with 3,025 words of readable prose.
The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 291 words.
98.2% of the article is authored by Aintabli, with small contributions from six other editors. .
It is currently assessed as a Stub class article, but there have been substantial changes since it was assessed in 2010.
There are duplicate links to Cairo and Safavid Iran.
This should be fixed now.

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- Suggest rewording "where he served several positions administering parts of the country" to read "where he served in several positions, administering parts of the country" or something similar.
Done
- I believe it should be "victories" in the "Battles of Marj Dabiq and Ridaniya".
Done
- Suggest clarifying "Ottoman officials inspecting these rumors" as "Ottoman officials who were inspecting these rumors" or "Ottoman officials while they were inspecting these rumors"
Done
- I believe that it should be "to install Ali on the Dulkadirid throne".
Done Good catch.
- I believe that "to" is superfluous in "proposed Selim to", "at" in "hinted at that" and "the" in "the Ottoman rule was restored".
Done
- Consider rewording "During the skirmish, one of the Ottoman soldiers noticed Bozkurt with his extravagant dress and lunged at him. Having killed Bozkurt, the soldier presented his head to Sinan Pasha". I think it is "in" rather than "with" and that the pronoun should be in the subclause rather than the main clause.
I'm not sure which of the two sentences it is, but I have rearranged that part.
- Consider a comma after the subclause "Ali was installed as the new ruler of the Dulkadir".
Done
- Consider rewording "In a letter to the Mamluk sultan, Selim called for their support for Ali against his relatives and proposed to return the Dulkadirids to Mamluk overlordship given they remain impartial to the Ottoman–Safavid dispute." to clarify who the pronoun "they" refers to.
Done Aintabli (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider subclauses in commas, such as "Malik Arslan" in "his nephew Shahruh's son Malik Arslan", "including one of Ali's sons" in "Ottoman commanders including one of Ali's sons were killed" and "disguising the meeting's purpose as a future campaign against the Safavids" in "he invited Ali and his sons disguising the meeting's purpose as a future campaign against the Safavids".
Done
- Suggest changing "opposite side or the left wing of the Mamluk army" to "opposite side, or left wing, of the Mamluk army".
Done Aintabli (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. That all looks great. I can see no obvious spelling or grammar issues. simongraham (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- Adjust "2 thousand", "5 thousand" and "20 thousand" for consistency as per MOS:NUMERAL.
Done Aintabli (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article complies with relevant Manuals of Style. simongraham (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- Suggest providing translations of the titles with trans-title.
Done
The reference section is compliant.
all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- Spot checks confirm Pierce 2003 and Venzke 2017. AGF for the print sources.
it contains no original research;
- All statements that require them have citations.
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Please check his name. I note that he is known as "Şehsuvaroǧlu" in, for example, Pierce 2003.
That is the Turkish spelling of "Shahsuwaroghlu". Şehsuvaroǧlu means "son of Shah Suwar". It's not needed in the article title as there is no other Ali who ruled Dulkadir, and in that case, it would be Ali I of Dulkadir, anyways. When it comes to the spelling found in the article, Har-El spells it Shah-suwar-oghlu, so there is no common spelling among English sources, but Har-El's fits the English language, while a variation of the Turkish spelling (employed by Peirce) is included within a footnote. Aintabli (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. simongraham (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- A quick search of Google Scholar brings up a number of other articles, although many have cursory mentions of Ali. Consider adding information from some like Margaret Venzke's "The Case of a Dulgadir-Mamluk Iqtā': A Re-Assessment of the Dulgadir Principality and its Position within the Ottoman-Mamluk Rivalry."[[1]].
I'd cited that source before. Don't know how I missed it here. I've added it now and picked a few unique pieces of information not mentioned elsewhere. If I find anything else either in that article or a new source I may find, I will surely add them here. Yinanç (which Venzke describes as "excellent" on page 401) is a definitive and extensive source that is cited by most other sources on this subject, so while you will get a lot of hits when searching on this topic, the sources you'll come across often don't provide any new info and don't rely on anything other than Yinanç's work. Aintabli (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. That feels comprehensive to me. simongraham (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The article seems neutral.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- The article is recent so there are many recent edits but there is no evidence of edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The images are marked with appropriate public domain tags.
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- Consider adding ALT tags for accessibility.
Done

@Aintabli: Thank you for your work on this. I feel there are just some minor tweaks to go. Please take a tell me when you would like me to look at this again. simongraham (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: I think I've addressed all the points. Please let me know if I have missed or not adequately responded to any of them. Aintabli (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aintabli: That looks excellent. Congratulations on all your hard work. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 13:42, 11 July 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.