Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Khalji Revolution/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 November 2024 [1].

Khalji Revolution

Nominator(s): Noorullah (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a political revolution in the Delhi Sultanate in the year 1290. It significantly saw the fall of the Mamluk dynasty and the rise of the Khalji dynasty. Khalji rule would go on to see the Delhi Sultanate encompass most of India under them. The revolution itself had many changes socially as well, with the end of Turkic dominance over the nobility of the Delhi Sultanate. Noorullah (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Alt text shouldn't duplicate caption

Suggest scaling up the map

File:Islamic_Sultanates._Delhi_(Khaljis)._Jalal_al_Din_Firuz._1290-1296_AD._AV_Tanka_(10.95_gm)._Delhi_mint._Dated_AH_691_(1291-2_AD)._Legend_citing_the_sultan_Legend_citing_the_caliph_al_Must'asim.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria Hey, I think I've fixed the other issues except for the file. Can you clarify what you exactly mean by "needs a tag for the original work."? Thanks. Noorullah (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tagging on the image reflects the copyright status of the photo, but the coin itself has a separate status - it's likely in the public domain due to its age, we just need an additional tag to reflect that. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria Ah, thanks, should be good now. Noorullah (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mujinga

forthcoming Mujinga (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'm doing a prose review and as it stands am leaning oppose based on failing to meet 1a on the FAC criteria - "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"
lead last
background section:
wikilink mamluk on first mention, not third
does turkic need a link?
"Founded by Qutb ud-Din Aibak, a Turkic slave of his Ghurid overlord Muhammad of Ghor, the Mamluks rose to power following Muhammad's death and asserted their independence." - this sentence is a bit garbled, the Mamluks are the subject but appear quite late. also what are the mamluks? a family? a dynasty? a tribe? this needs drawing out.
link Delhi Sultanate on first mention
"Balban continued to consolidate" - who?
"Malik Nizamuddin" - who? link?
Rise of Jalaluddin section:
what naming convention are you following here? to me as a nonexpert reader, it seems inconsistent since you have "Jalaluddin Khalji" then "Jalaluddin" but amongst others "Amir Khusrau" staying "Amir Khusrau" upon later mention
"Bughra Khan advised Qaiqabad to abstain from indulging in wine and pleasure with concubines, and to remove Nizamuddin from power. After his father's departure, Qaiqabad attempted to resist indulging in debauchery" - prose concerns here, there's 2x indulging and further it's encyclopedia so we don't need to be circumspect about drunkenness
"The Turkic faction aimed to maintain Turkic dominance over the Delhi Sultanate, while the Khalji faction sought power for themselves" - another example of not great prose with 2xTurkic
revolution section:
14 uses of "Jalaluddin" over three paragraphs
"Subsequently, Aitmar Surkah and Aitmar Kachhan initiated intrigue, sending a letter to Jalaluddin addressing him as emperor.[21] Another account suggested it was a letter summoning him to court.[20] "- prose issues
"Unopposed, Jalaluddin ordered Qaiqabad's execution. He was wrapped in a carpet and thrown into the Yamuna River.[24]" - prose
"Jalaluddin offered Malik Chajju the role of regent, but Malik Chajju preferred the governorship of Kara. With Jalaluddin's approval, Malik Chajju left for Kara. Jalaluddin assumed the roles of regent and wazir of the Sultanate" - prose
aftermath section ok
lead:
"death of Mamluk sultan" - death of the Mamluk sultan
there are duplicate links eg Khalji dynasty x2, Delhi Sultanate x3
is this lead summarising article well? not really eg "The upheaval commenced and concluded in 1290 when Jalaluddin Khalji seized absolute power, toppling the Mamluks and inaugurating the rule of the Khalji dynasty." - this shows how it commenced but not how it was concluded
further, the events of the Khalji Revolution remain quite unclear for me as a nonexpert. obviously it's a hard event to summarise since it was over quickly and involved different factions, but I'm afraid i don't think this article currently is FA standard. it has received a Guild of Copy Editors copyedit, but perhaps a peer review would have helped on its way here Mujinga (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed these issues. @Mujinga

Balban is mentioned in the lead "It unfolded following the death of the Mamluk sultan Balban..."

But in the area where you mentioned it may be unclear, from your comment:

"Balban continued to consolidate" - who?"

Changed to this:

"Balban, another ruler of the Delhi Sultanate, continued to consolidate the kingdom after ascending the throne in 1266."

I've also tried to make the article more clear, both by additions in the lead and in-paragraph. Noorullah (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would have appreciated replies to each point, rather than just "fixed these issues" which doesn't seem to be the case. There are certain things that suggest we aren't quite on the same page here, like you not using edit summaries and seemingly not being aware that it is standard practice to wikilink both in the lead and on first mention in the body (and nowadays once per section if it helps). This then makes me think you would indeed be much better off putting the article to peer review first. In addition there's the unresolved issue of the prose being rather antiquated, which makes me wonder if its reflecting the style of the sources rather than taking an encyclopedic tone. It would be great to have this as a featured article, but in my opinion it needs more work first. Good luck with it! Mujinga (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly the prose is purely on my issue. I’ve nominated another page before but one of the more significant concerns typically is prose, (especially looking at past GA’s, which @AirshipJungleman29 can attest to) that prose is definitely something I need to work on and pay more attention to.

Sometimes I write as you said “antiquated”, lol. I think per your case here it’d be best to withdraw this nomination. Noorullah (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.