Talk:Irghiz River skirmish

How can I nominate this article into Did you know?

@AntanO:, @Robert McClenon:, @Robertsky:, can any of you help me? I did read the DDY pages, Wikiproject pages etc yet failed to grasp how to do it. Even checked the sources of the already nominated nominations, they just cite templates without the text that is appearing on the page itself? I have hard times with those templates and coding. Thank you in advance

Here is the way I want to display it: Did you know that 20 years yoing Khwarezmian prince Jalal al-Din Mangburnu once defeated Jebe and repelled Subutai and Jochi on the same day, forcing them to abandon the field?? and then link to this article --81.213.215.83 (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I did some clean up and you again made some wrong style of edit. For DYK, refer WP:DYK --AntanO 07:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I do not understand coding well. I did look at DYK pages, I even reached at the nomination (talk page), I looked at other nominations but I fail to understand how it is done. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• @HistoryofIran:, maybe you can help me? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I've never done it before. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

About edit of Mclynn paragraph

Hello, @GrammarGuardian2021:. In your current edit of Mclynn, you omitted the statement "possibly", keeping it would have been better as Mclynn states it. It would emphasise --81.213.215.83 (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: About edit of Mclynn paragraph

@81.213.215.83: I can't say I agree with that assessment, but I'm happy to explain my rationale and hear other opinions! In my opinion, "possibly" sounded extraneous (since an estimate is, definitionally, a possible guess). The concise point of the paragraph is that Mclynn estimated the Khwarezmians army at 60,000 (and the Mongol army at 20,000), which to my understanding is fully true (he did offer that estimate, and, in my opinion, it does not need hedging with additional words, since the uncertainty of any estimate is implicit).

Likewise, removing "possibly" came with the added benefit of removing the scare quotes, which I thought a reader could interpret as sarcastic (especially due to the already slightly awkward phrasing of the paragraph).

Overall, I think the section is significantly clearer and easier to read in its current form.

Let me know what you think, and feel free to bring in a third opinion! GrammarGuardian2021 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, only just I realised your reply, GrammarGuardian2021. I understood and agree with your rationale. The reason I objected was, as I explained previously, Mclynn states that word explicitly but as I have re-written as "he estimates" then no need for "possibly". --81.213.215.83 (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

About the outcome of the battle

Hello, . I have seen your re-phrasements and thank you for that but in the lead section of the current version you have stated that "the battle ended in victory for the Khwarezmian army after the Mongols abandoned their camp and yielded the field." Putting aside the question about whether it is an original research or not. I, as the editor who have created this page and attributed all the references, shall note that only the 3 sources mentioned in the infobox state that this was a victory by Khwarezmians while all of the remaining sources cited in this article state the battle was indecisive. We shall reflect both sides. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Also, @Fritzmann2002:, why is the template is put on the article? If it is for that "Subutai's retreat shall go unnoticed" part, then all those cited sources DO mention that part. It does not need further verification --81.213.215.83 (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @81.213.215.83:, I'm going to take another look at it and probably rewrite the lede section to be more indicative of the content of the article, but as for the latter point, if it is in the sources, just add another inline citation to indicate that. Most of the sources are not in my native language, or are not linked, so I can't read them to discern whether or not the article reflects what they have to say accurately. All I can see is that there was a whole paragraph of information that did not have any inline citations. Best wishes, Fritzmann (message me) 14:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle on the Irghiz River/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 04:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at reviewing this article. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 04:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Images

• Both images have proper licenses.

MoS, structure, coverage, and grammar

Lead

• Add "the" before "Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire"
• "On the Irghiz River, Aktobe Region, Kazakhstan" → "On the Irghiz River (modern day Aktobe Region, Kazakhstan)" as it makes reference to a modern place
• Remove "Modern historians estimate" from both strength parameters in the infobox
• I moved the article's three campaignboxes into the infobox
• "in 1209 or 1219" → "1209 or 1219"
• Use an en dash at "1220-21"

•  Done all done.

Chronology

• "The battle is described, in varying levels of detail, by four separate chroniclers" → "The battle is described in varying levels of detail by four separate chroniclers" unnecessary commas
• Use an en dash at "1215-6"
• "highly suspect" WP:COLLOQUIAL(?)
• "One historian, citing the fact" which historian?
• "It is certain that" according to who?
• "One theory suggests" who's theory?

•  Done all done

Battle

• "assembled a force of his own, and rode to meet them" → "assembled a force of his own and rode to meet them" unnecessary comma

• Done

• "at least one modern historian" which modern historian?

• Done

• Who is De Hartog? Include his first name

• Done

• Who is Sverdrup? same as above

• Done

• "it is often cited" by who?

• Everyone, and I do mean everyone. I've attributed it to Barthold

• I see, alright.

• What's the relevance of the quote?

• To illustrate the Shah's reaction. It's not necessary, should I remove it?

• I personally don't see it's connection to the events, and it isn't necessary for the article so it should be removed.

•  Done

Overall

• Coverage seems to be sufficient for what is known about the battle. It is interesting to me that we don't even know for certain what year it occurred in.
• No war edits ongoing on the page.
• Categories are good.
• Article is well referenced.
• Sources are reliable.
• I saw that Category:1209 in Asia did not exist, so I created it and added it to the page.
• Well written, no misspellings which I saw.
• Article follows a neutral point of view.

Well done. This article is close to good article status, just a few edits and it should be able to pass this review. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 05:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13: have responded, thanks very much. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Looks about done, just the issue about the quote and I'll pass it. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 17:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13:, all  Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Very well done on this article, very interesting battle. I'll give is a pass to good article status. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 20:18, 9 March 2022 (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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that historians do not agree on whether the Battle on the Irghiz River took place in 1209 or 1219? Source: see various in Battle on the Irghiz River#Chronology
  • Reviewed: [[]]
  • Comment: Fourth DYK nomination

Improved to Good Article status by AirshipJungleman29 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article achieved GA on 9 March, and RPS is easily over the needed min. Nom has 3 DYK credits so no QPQ required. Hook is definitely interesting, and sourced inline in the article by numerous sources in the "Chronology" section. Earwig looks good, and every paragraph is sourced well. Looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Projects

Is there a reason this is tagged under {{WikiProject Turkmenistan}} instead of {{WikiProject Kazakhstan}}, where the battle took place? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb:, no there is not. Corrected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NCCAPS

The title appears to be descriptive, at least, I am not finding any sources that use the exact same title which don't appear to have copied it from WP. Unless the title is a proper name consistently capitalized in RS, it must be lowercased (eg Irghiz River skirmish) (t · c) buidhe 15:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox edits

To the IP who keeps trying to edit the infobox to display a Khwarazmian victory and increase Jalal al-Din's contributions, all sources are very clear that the battle was indecisive at best and that Muhammad II was in command. If you want to overturn this, you will want to find reliable sources of your all and cite them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)