Talk:Suleiman of Germiyan/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 01:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: PearlyGigs (talk · contribs) 09:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

Hi, Aintabli. I'll do this review. It's part of the current GAN backlog drive. Hope to let you have some feedback soon. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article and it's very interesting. I just made a few copyedits, mainly in the final section where I was slightly unsure about how the two consorts were presented.

I do have one question for you which concerns the statement: Suleiman Shah had to recede to Kula. Are you sure about "recede" here because the context seems to be that he had to "retreat" or "withdraw". I usually associate "recede" with inanimate things like waters or hair.

Next step, per WP:GAN/I#R3 is to select a sample of citations for a verification spot-check. If these are okay, I'll be able to do the rest of the review based on all six of the GA criteria. I'll let you have the sample results later. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check sample

I've had to use a translation tool for each of the sources but there is no problem with any of them, and I think the article could actually be expanded quite a bit, based on what I can see in the translations. I accept, by the way, that spellings of names vary but it is obvious in each case who is intended. Sample results:

FN04 (Uzunçarşılı 1969, p. 45) – "Suleiman Shah assisted the Hamidids in recovering their lands lost to the Karamanids. This initiated a rivalry between Ala al-Din and Suleiman Shah".

Verified.

FN07 (Varlık 1974, p. 66) – "Suleiman Shah had to recede to Kula, where he died in early 1387 (before April that year)".

Verified. Note that the translation uses "retreat"; also, Varlık as well as Uzunçarşılı confirms the burial in Gürhane.

FN09 (Varlık 1974, p. 67) – First consort was "a daughter of Umur of Aydın".

Verified.

FN10 (Varlık 1974, p. 64) – Second consort was "Mutahhare Abide Hatun, who was the daughter of Sultan Walad, son of the famous Sufi scholar and poet Rumi".

Verified.

FN12 (Turgut 2017, pp. 17–18) – Offspring and names.

Verified.

So, it looks promising. I'll move on to the full review now, using the six GA criteria. Back later. PearlyGigs (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

I'll use this list to record the results. I have no problems around NPOV or stability so those two are okay. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written.

a. Prose. Nothing wrong with the style of writing; everything is understandable. A few minor tweaks were needed but spelling and grammar are fine.

b. MOS. The lead is a good intro and summary — very concise and says what needs to be said. Layout is standard and the other three aspects don't apply.

2. WP:V and WP:NOR.

a. List. Reflist accords with publishing industry standards.

b. Inline. Passed all citation spot-checks (see above).

c. NOR. None.

d. CVP. None.

3. Breadth of coverage.

a. Main. Entirely adequate given that relatively little is known about Suleiman. There is room for expansion, of course, but the coverage is fine for the purposes of this review.

b. Focus. This is one of the article's strongest points, based on what I can glean from the source translations.

4. Neutral. No problems. The information is presented objectively.

5. Stability. No problems.

6. Images.

a. Copyright. One is public domain, the other is an editor's own photo. Both are suitably tagged.

b. Relevant. Yes, and the captions are fine.

Result

Hi, Aintabli. I'm pleased to say that this article passes the review and I will promote it to GA. It's a very interesting piece of history. I have to admit I'd never heard of Suleiman previously and it's always good to read something new. Very well done. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the review. Your edits are all fine by me. Do you have any additional suggestions to improve the article? Aintabli (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PearlyGigs, I wouldn't say that this review is incomplete, exactly, but I see you mentioned that I think the article could actually be expanded quite a bit, based on what I can see in the translations - it's really helpful if you can be more specific, so the nominator has something to work from to improve the article. Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering, I can't be more specific, as such, because I could only deal with translations necessary to understand what is in the article now. My observation was based on the scale of the sources which made me think there could be much more information that Aintabli and other editors might possibly use. That would be the editor's choice, of course, but this article as it stands is a good one, and I DO consider the "review to be complete, exactly".

You may as well know that I am taking no further part in your backlog drive and I will have nothing more to do with the arcane GA process which is a waste of time and space. It has no standard because many reviewers ignore the supposed criteria and instructions.

As far as I and other editors are concerned, compliance with the B-class criteria is sufficient for an article to be considered "good". Obviously, a much higher standard must apply to FAC nominations, but the so-called GA has no credibility at all and the site would be well advised to scrap it. PearlyGigs (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PearlyGigs, if you have concerns with the GA process and reviewers ignoring the criteria, I suggest you open a topic on the GAN talk page so people can discuss it further. (Though I'd advise you to avoid language like "waste of time and space" if you want anyone to listen.) fwiw, I think of B-class as basically "GA without the formal review", so at least in my opinion, you're basically on track with what you think a GA is. -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]