Talk:Ghars al-Din Khalil

Ghars al-Din Khalil 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: January 16, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). Turkey ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Ghars al-Din Khalil/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 23:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (

   lists

   ):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism

   ):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
• Spotchecks:
  • "Khalīl had 2" is sourced to p. 467 of Venzke 2000 which verifies the information.
  • "During their father's reign, Mehmed and Ali received land around Aleppo from Barquq, although it is unknown if this required duty or was merely honorific" is sourced to Venzke 2000 p. 412 which verifies the information - a small suggestion with this bit - "although it is unknown if this required duty or was merely honorific" is verging a bit close to the source material's "Such notices in the sources frequently do not make it clear whether the assigned Mamluk rank was merely honorfic or actually required the fulfillment of duties." I suggest rewriting the article text a bit - perhaps "although whether this was just an honorary rank or if some service was required."
    • Changed to although it is unknown whether this was just an honorary rank or if some service was required.
  • "In 1352 or 1353, just before he inherited the throne from his executed father, Khalīl sought to expand the Dulkadirid lands towards the Euphrates corridor" is sourced to Venzke 2017, which supports the information.
  • "This included an attempt to capture Malatya and the castle of Zamantu, the first of which ended up unsuccessful, since the natives secured Mamluk authority in 1360, while the latter became core Dulkadirid territory" is sourced to Venzke 2017 which supports the information.
  • "From Aleppo, Ibrahim deployed his troops to the yaylak between Marash and Aintab, where Khalīl was residing and ambushed him in April 1386" is sourced to Venzke 2017 which supports a bit of the information but not all of it. The source says "The Mamlūk sultan al-Ẓāhir Barqūq (r. 784–91, 792–801/1382–9, 1390–9) now sought to exploit the divisions that had formed between Halil’s brothers, particularly through Süli (Sūlī), and aimed to assassinate Halil by using a Turkoman chief. Halil was ambushed and killed in Rebiülevvel (Rabīʿ I) 788/April 1386 as he was moving to summer pastures between Ayntab and Maraş; his head was sent to Cairo, while his body was buried outside Zamantu castle, near the Melik Gazi türbe (mausoleum) (Malik Ghāzī turba). Previously, his brother İbrahim had gone to Cairo to secure Mamlūk recognition of his possession of Harput castle." This does support that Khalil was killed in April 1386 between Ayntab and Marash, but not the rest of the sentence.
    • The rest of the information (that Ibrahim deployed his troops from Aleppo) was supported by the following ref (Alıç 2020), so I added an extra ref there.
• Lead:
  • "deteriorating the growingly tense Dulkadirid-Mamluk relations" ... I think you mean "contributing to the growing tension between the Mamluks and Dulkadirids"?
    •  Done
  • "The disturbance caused by Khalīl in the northern frontier of the Mamluks prompted the Mamluk sultan to manipulate the internal relations of the Dulkadir dynasty" this reads very oddly - suggest perhaps "Raids by Khalīl in the northern frontier with the Mamluks prompted the Mamluk sultan to provoke dissension in the Dulkadir dynasty."
    •  Done
  • "The sultan commissioned Sarim al-Din Ibrahim, who sought Mamluk recognition for his domains near Harpoot, to assassinate his ruling brother, Khalīl. Ghars al-Dīn was thus ambushed and eliminated, allowing his other brother Shaban Sūlī's rise to the throne." This also reads very stilted - suggest "The sultan incited Khalil's brother Sarim al-Din Ibrahim, who sought Mamluk recognition for his domains near Harpoot, to assassinate the ruler. Ghars al-Dīn was killed in an ambush, and was succeeded by his other brother Shaban Sūlī."
    •  Done
• Early life:
  • "One of Qarāja's sons agreed with the Bedouin leader Jabbar bin Muhanna to attack Aleppo in order to save his father. This was unsuccessful" which son led this attack? I suggest reworking this to "One of Qarāja's sons attempted to rescue his father in an unsuccessful attack on Aleppo. The attempt further angered the sultan, who..."
    • Sources do not make it clear which son it was. Changed accordingly almost verbatim (The attempt --> This).
  • "Salih scolded him in person and kept him in the Citadel of Cairo. After being imprisoned for 48 days, he was tortured to death on 11 December 1353. His corpse was left hanging in Bab Zuweila for 3 days" perhaps "Once in Cairo, Qarāja was berated by the sultan, imprisoned in the Citadel of Cairo for 48 days, and tortured to death on 11 December 1353."
    • Changed accordingly almost verbatim (Once in Cairo --> There).
• Rule:
  • "and Kadi Burhan al-Din, a former vizier to the Eretnids who usurped the rule" usurped the rule of who/where?
    • Added source and clarified: and Kadi Burhan al-Din, who had usurped the rule of the Eretnid Sultanate from Muhammad II Chelebi as his regent in Sivas in 1381.
  • "increased diplomatic relations with the Mamluks" but later we say "increase his influence like his father exacerbated Mamluk-Dulkadirid relations" which was it ... did relations improve or did deteriorate?
    • Really good catch. I checked the source (Alıç 2020), which was in Turkish, and it actually translates to that they interacted frequently, so I corrected it. It now reads: and frequently interacted with the Mamluks and Kadi Burhan al-Din.
  • "Kadi Burhan al-Din was a rising figure who usurped the Eretnid throne as the former vizier" the "as the former vizier" makes no sense here in connection to the usurpation of the Eretnid throne - do you mean "Kadi Burhan al-Din was the Eretnid vizier who overthrew his ruler and took over Eretnid rule"?
    • Yep.
  • "In order to further thwart Dulkadirid activity, the new Mamluk sultan, Barquq, took advantage of rivalries between Khalīl's brothers and planned Khalīl's assassination." Suggest "Barquq, the new Mamluk sultan, attempted to thwart Dulkadirid ambitions by provoking conflict between Khalīl's brothers and secure Khalīl's assassination"
    •  Done

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth:, I think I addressed your comments. Aintabli (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check these in the morning (from the middle of the US) as I gotta go deal with non-wiki work... heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Appreciate the suggestions you made by the way. Aintabli (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! Aintabli (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]