Talk:Yakub II

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Yakub II/GA1

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

Reviewer: asilvering (talk · contribs) 23:08, 2 March 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:

Coverage

1. Right now it looks like this article could be titled "Military campaigns of Yakub II". I don't see even a hint of what he did that wasn't war. That looks like a significant oversight, since one of the first sources I turned up mentions him in context of his cultural legacy. (Kim, Sooyong. "Literary Culture in Fifteenth-Century Kütahya: A Preliminary Assessment." Islamic Literature and Intellectual Life in Fourteenth-and Fifteenth-Century Anatolia. Ergon-Verlag, 2016.). -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, I appear to have messed up and forgot about that part. But I have now added a few paragraphs about his patronage. Let me know what you think, but I will probably further expand it. Aintabli (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   This also looks like it might be helpful? -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   That is about the kulliye, which I have recently expanded on with a source from a different scholar. The source you provided is by Varlık, and two of his works are already cited in the article. A third one might be excessive with regard to your last comment below. Aintabli (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   @Aintabli If he's really the only guy doing in-depth work on this area, there's not much we can do. Since there's no reason to believe he's unreliable, I'm happy with him being used as the main source so long as a real effort to find other sources has been undertaken. -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I was caught up by the other reviews and expected to be done with the review of Yakub I of Germiyan before this article, so I couldn't dedicate my full attention to that. But I can say that it is natural for this source to be frequently cited throughout this article, because it is the only or one of the few sources that solely focus on the Germiyanids. And it is also cited constantly in other publications: example I remember trying to find this source after seeing that it was cited so frequently for this topic. Aintabli (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. I don't think the "background" section is needed here. I suggest moving any really important information elsewhere in the article. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

1. There's no citation of Varlık, Mustafa Çetin (1996). Is this a mistake? Or should the source be moved to Further reading? -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   It now has. Aintabli (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. I don't have any reason to believe that these sources are unreliable per se, but they're quite old. I'm leery of approving a GA that doesn't have any sources at all from this century, since a lot could have changed in the historiography of the area in the past decades. Can you find anything more recent? -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   A source I have now added is from 2013. On a different note, though, Varlık (especially his book from 1974) is a major secondary source on the subject and is constantly cited: [1]

3. I'm also concerned that this is heavily reliant on a single source, Varlık, Mustafa Çetin (1974). -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I have added a new source but will surely further work on that. Aintabli (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   @Aintabli I've added prose comments, and another comment under "coverage" above. I don't think this is at GA level yet, but I am pretty sure we can get there during the course of this review, if you're up for it. I'll place the review on hold for now. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Ok, I've done the rest of the source check from the TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi articles, which also cover the info from the earlier sources, so we're good to go here too. I'm having to go through machine translation, but I'm not finding anything I need to query. I am a little concerned that some of this might be close to "plagiarism by translation", ie, that the English of this article is very similar to what would happen if the source material were directly translated from Turkish. I don't think it's so close that anything needs to be rewritten, but I thought I should flag this so you have it in mind when writing similar articles in the future. -- asilvering (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

1. Yakub's parents were Suleiman Shah and a daughter of Umur. Was this daughter of Umur his wife? If so, I think "Suleiman Shah and his wife, who was a daughter of Umur, the bey of Aydin" would be clearer and more informative. If we don't know if she was his wife, I still think adding "the bey of Aydin" would help stabilize this sentence a bit. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done

2. He was the wali unclear who "he" is. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Yakub. Clarified.

3. sided with the Karamanids in reclaiming lands lost to the Ottomans Not clear what's going on here. Lands lost how? Is this a rebellion? a war? something else? etc. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   War. Clarified, reworded.

4. In 1390, the entire realm of Germiyan came under Ottoman control. it's not totally clear from this that Yakub II was removed from power entirely. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Clarified.

5. In general, it would be helpful if you added more context for nearly every name in here. For example, However, when Murad I died in battle and was succeeded by his son Bayezid I, will make no sense to someone who doesn't already know that Murad I was the ruler of the Ottoman Empire. You don't need whole sentences of context. Even "Sultan Murad I" would do, since you've called it "Ottoman Sultanate" in the previous sentence. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done

6. Timur granted Yakub the former lands under Germiyan If this means "Timur restored the former Germiyan possessions to Yakub", it should say that instead. If it doesn't mean that, please clarify. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Changed it to your version verbatim.

7. Timur stayed in Kütahya for some time but spared its inhabitants unclear why this is relevant to Yakub II's biography. Also unclear why one would expect Timur staying in Kutahya to result in the death of all its inhabitants. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Removed that bit.

8. which practically ended Yakub's second reign can you clarify this "practically"? ie, does it mean "nearly"/"almost completely" or does it mean "in effect"/"in all intents and purposes"? -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   In effect.

9. Mehmed II further laid a 31-day siege in Bursa in 1413 and set the city on fire, which prompted Mehmed Chelebi to quickly return to Anatolia after having defeated his brother Musa Chelebi in Rumelia. not clear why this is relevant to Yakub II's biography? -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Mehmed Chelebi's help is the primary reason why Yakub regained the throne. Musa's defeat in Rumelia will prompt Mehmed II of Karaman to retreat.

10. when Musa's dead body arrived in Bursa in 1416, Mehmed II retreated in a hurry this sounds like Mehmed II was running away from a zombie. Can you clarify what's going on here? Or, does it even need to be in this article? -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reworded that part. Hope it doesn't feel like an episode of The Walking Dead now.

11. Although he was favored by the locals, Mustafa was not allowed to enter Bursa why not? Alternatively, you could remove this and move straight to the siege of Iznik. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed.

12. Germiyan, as it was already subordinate to the Ottomans and unofficially part of the state unclear from this biography when that happened and why. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't give an exact date or time. I tried to clarify the reason, but the preceding events kind of reveal that Yakub barely had any influence and power in those times.

13. Likewise, Yakub bequeathed his domains to Murad as he had no sons and did not want to hand over the rule to his sister's children. Do we have any idea why? -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    His sister was married to Murad II's grandfather. According to her article, her offpsring included Isa Chelebi, who fought against Murad II's father. So, I would assume that may be one of the reasons. However, this is my own explanation, and I cannot put that in the article. I've added that her children were technically Murad II's half-uncles, which could hint at the rivalry.

14. Paragraph beginning The Germiyanid palace became a center of science, and the following: I think these belong under a new heading. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Aintabli (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Aintabli back to you! Sorry for the delay, been out of sorts last week. I'm doing a source-check now. -- asilvering (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose part 2

Okay, I've done a prose edit myself for grammar/flow - please feel free to contest any of those changes if you disagree with them. Having done it, I have two remaining questions:

1. Before returning to Anatolia, Bayezid... It's not clear where Bayezid was and why from this article. A reader could assume it has to do with the Battle of Kosovo, but it would be helpful to spell it out. -- asilvering (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It read: Before returning to Anatolia, Bayezid first ensured stability in the Balkans... I've changed it to Before returning to Anatolia from the Balkans, Bayezid first ensured stability in the latter region... Aintabli (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Now that the prose of the article is pretty settled, can you have another go at the lead? Right now it's a blow-by-blow of the individual events of his life, which gets into too much detail compared to the article. It would be more helpful if it was a more general overview, mentioning only the most important facts specifically. -- asilvering (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   @Asilvering, would you think it's better now? Aintabli (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   @Aintabli I did a bit of rearranging to keep the broadest descriptions in the first paragraph and the narrative history in a second one. How does that look to you? -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   @Asilvering, I listed the periods he ruled, for clarity. Otherwise, it looks good. Aintabli (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]