Talk:Mutahharten

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:Mutahharten/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 21:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this on in the following days. Constantine ✍ 21:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To conform with your comments on the other GA reviews, I will go through this article and add regnal dates, remove diacritics, add OCLC, ISBN, etc. and so on. Aintabli (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the unnecessary diacritics. Aintabli (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added OCLC, ISSN, etc. Aintabli (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a location map, gave the meaning of a non-English term in parentheses, and added the regnal intervals for each ruler mentioned. @Cplakidas:, feel free to start the review on your part when you have time. Aintabli (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Constantine, Aintabli, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, Constantine has not returned in the six weeks since opening this review page to actually do the review that was promised within "days", which is unfortunate, since a nomination this old stood a good chance of being picked up during the current backlog drive. Should this be put back into the pool of unreviewed nominations for the final two days of the drive, or will the review be conducted in the very near future? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset I intended to do it this weekend. Constantine ✍ 21:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

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 (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section):

   b (inline citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   (source spot-check done):

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:

Lede

• The 'Background' section is currently not present in the lede, which contravenes MOS:INTRO

  Added a sentence about how the emirate was a vassal of the Eretnids, which is included in the Background section.

• He claimed sovereignty when he assumed power, which prompted Sultan Ala al-Din Ali (r. 1366–80) to go on an expedition to reinstate Eretnid authority over Erzincan. Clarify that he claimed independence from the Eretnids, and that Ala al-Din was an Eretnid sultan

  Clarified.

• grave fear is MOS:FLOWERY

  Removed grave. Aintabli (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• such as the Aq Qoyunlu either put this after turn against his former allies or give a more detailed example of his relationship with the Aq Qoyunlu here

  Chose the first option.

• Burhan al-Din and Mutahharten were involved in a long-lasting conflict, which was interrupted by the advent of Timur. This is not supported in the main article; the first phase of the conflict is shown as ending before Timur arrived, and then continuing after Timur entered the scene.

  Changed accordingly.

• Although Timur conquered Sivas What is the significance of this? Also, introduce Sivas to the reader.

  Removed that part as I now think it may be tangential.

• nearing end for the Emirate of Erzincan this leaves the lede ending with a cliffhanger; add why and how the emirate ended.

  Clarified. Aintabli (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  their rival Qara Qoyunlu. 'their rivals, the Qara Qoyunlu'?

Background

• The section is not so much about Mutahharten's background, but of the emirate he led. Would recommend expanding the title to reflect that.

   Done

• south of the Empire of Trebizond not enough to identify its location for people who don't know where Trebizond is. Add at least that it was located in 'northeastern Anatolia (modern Turkey)' or similar, and add that Trebizond was a Christian state.

   Done

• Non-English terms like ahi, jizya or shahid should be italicized using the lang template, as described in MOS:FOREIGN

   Done

• Explain the meaning of jizya

   Done

• Introduce Abu Bakr Qutbi

   Done

• Is 'emīr-zāda' (Ottoman) Turkish or Persian? It definitely is not modern Turkish, as -zade is distinctly Persianate.

  I was unsure about the language of the work Ta'rīkh-i taqwīm. I am changing it to Farsi in any case.

• coin specimen minted in Erzincan for Ala al-Din Ali who is that, and why is the coin significant?

   Done

• the demise of Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I who is that?

   Done Aintabli (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to power and war with the Eretnids

• What is Mutahharten's relationship with Pir Husayn?

  Unknown.

• Gloss the khutba, and italicize per above

   Done

• bestow control of the city which city is meant here? The last one mentioned is Sivas.

  Erzincan.

• preventing the incoming aid 'intercepting the reinforcements' or similar?

  Replaced verbatim.

• Would Emir Ordu Shah warrant a WP:REDLINK?

   Done Aintabli (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed my mind. I doubt anyone will create it. I can't currently find much sources about him other than those found here.

First war with Kadi Burhan al-Din

• reenacting is incorrect here; 're-imposing'?

  Already done by Dcdiehardfan.

• Would Malik Ahmad warrant a WP:REDLINK?

  I am reluctant. There are many such emirs as mentioned in the article, but I am unsure if I will ever be able to find enough sources and content to warrant a new article. I don't also want to add a bunch of redlinks without ever creating an article.

  Fine by me, you know the period far better than I do. Constantine ✍ 07:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• the latter of whom he arranged his sister's marriage to is a bit cumbersome. Perhaps replace with a full sentence like 'Relations with Zannun were strengthened via a marriage alliance with Mutahharten's sister' or similar...

   Done

• This was essentially an implicit declaration of Mutahharten's claim on the Eretnid throne hmmm, why? He demanded the restoration of the legitimate heir, but how is this a claim of his own?

  Muhammad was very young to rule.

• 2 thousand-strong per MOS, either 'two-thousand-strong' or '2,000-strong'

  Done by Dcdiehardfan.

• This switched Mutahharten's stance so that he instead sent his apologies and offered an alliance. Why, if this caused tension to peak? What did Mutahharten need to apologize for? Also, some rephrasing is in order, e.g. 'This event caused Mutahharten to change his stance, sending apologies and offering an alliance instead'.

  Removed that part.

• he sent Shadgeldi's head add when/how Shadgeldi was killed

  On the battlefield.

• suspicious of his loyalty suggest moving this to the start of the sentence

   Done

• massacred Koyulhisar you can massacre the population of a city, not the city itself

  Corrected.

• with the Mongol tribe of Barambay 'with' is unclear here. With the assistance of the Mongol tribe of Barambay? Or did the Marambay raid on his behalf?

  With the assistance.

• region around Amasya, Tokat, and Osmancık...he focused on his struggle east clarify that the former was to the north (I assume), and the latter against Mutahharten.

   Done

• led by Ahmad of the Aq Qoyunlu (r. 1389–1403), leading close repetition; suggest replacing the first 'led' by 'commanded', if indeed Ahmad commanded these forces in person, otherwise something like 'dispatched'.

  Oops. Had gotten tired writing this article. I changed it to "headed". Aintabli (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advent of Timur

• Introduce Timur, e.g. 'the Turco-Mongol warlord Timur', and explain why he was interested in Anatolia in the first place, i.e. what his claims were.

   Done

• taking advantage of his absence 'his' refers to Burhan al-Din, but the last person mentioned is Mutahharten

  Mentioned Burhan al-Din again.

• In 1387, Mutahharten reported Burhan al-Din to the Mamluk Sultan Barquq (r. 1382–89, 1390–99) as an ally of Timur in an effort to initiate a campaign on Sivas together with the Mamluks, which was successful and lasted until 1389. Who was an ally of Timur, Mutahharten or Barquq? 'an effort to initiate a campaign' is redundant, as the campaign came to pass. Also, what exactly does 'successful' refer to? I guess the effort, but it can be read as the campaign being successful. Perhaps smth like '...aiming to trigger a joint campaign on Sivas with the Mamluks. Mutahharten succeeded in this, and campaigned together with the Mamluks against Burhan al-Din until 1389'. But it leads to other questions as well: what was the outcome of the campaign, and why did it stop in 1389?

  Reworded. According to the source, it lasted until when the Mamluks retreated from the region.

• Mutahharten started following a hostile policy against them and was ultimately overpowered. why did he turn against them? and 'following a hostile policy' does not necessarily mean warfare, but this is implied by 'ultimately overpowered', which in turn is too vague: what does it mean? Was he defeated, expelled from Erzincan, or what?

  He turned against them after Qutlugh died. He was overpowered on the battlefield. Reworded

• recently-deceased is unnecessary, you have the regnal dates there for that.

  Removed. Aintabli (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mutahharten fled to Erzincan but reentered Aq Qoyunlu territory Why? When? After he had gathered fresh forces? The succession of events is too abrupt here.

  Added some more info from the source that he had prepared for a counter-attack.

• Mutahharten secured his allegiance to Timur A superior ruler secures the allegiance of his vassals; a vassal pledges or re-affirms their allegiance to their overlord.

  Changed to "reaffirmed".

• He acted as...compatriot what does this mean?

  My silly translation of the Turkish text. It doesn't add much to the content, so I've removed it.

• hostile origin nobody has hostile origin; replace with something like 'who was hostile to Mutahharten' or similar

   Done

• The author of Bazm-u Razm, Astarabadi, of hostile origin to Mutahharten, describes his actions during this period as cowardly, by claiming Mutahharten stopped administering his region altogether and after kissing Timur's stirrup, changed the name on his coins and the khutba to Timur's and tried to provoke him to invade all of Anatolia and Syria large run-on sentence; consider splitting up.

   Done

• massacred and decimated 'and decimated' is redundant, as it is used here as another verb for 'massacre' (I assume he did not really decimate the populace)

  I removed massacred, which has already been used before. The source additionally mentions that Burhan al-Din caused damage in addition to massacring the populace.

• territory spanning Bayburt. 'spanning' requires a from and a to, here only one location is given, but it is unclear what the territory is meant.

  Changed "spanning" to "around".

• On 27 October 1395, he clashed last person mentioned is Burhan al-Din

  Mentioned Mutahharten.

• Mutahharten had to escape from his wrath for the next two years again, MOS:FLOWERY and vague to boot; what does this mean? You can also link it to the next sentence by ...until Burhan al-Din was killed by Qara Yuluk, on 14 July 1398' or similar.

  Merged sentences and refs.

Relations with Trebizond and Christians

• Appropriate link for Emirate of Haji Amir?

  Added link.

• Gloss kharāj

   Done

• contingent upon does not make sense here ; 'dependent upon'?

  Replaced.

• Mutahharten's marriage to the daughter of the emperor this is given as a known fact here, but neither it nor the emperor's daughter are previously mentioned. Perhaps 'Mutahharten's marriage to a daughter of the emperor'? Was this his only marriage?

  Replaced verbatim. This was not his only marriage. He was also married to an Aq Qoyunlu princess.

  A couple more suggestions, add 'Emperor' before Alexios III, and qualify Panaretos as a Trapezuntine historian, otherwise the connection might be unclear to readers. Constantine ✍ 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Aintabli (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• more than they favored him who is they and him here?

  The Christian subjects.

• which Mutahharten paid him 9,000 aspers for mercy smth like "Mutahharten paid Timur 9,000 aspers to have the order reversed'? And was he successful or not?

  Changed to Mutahharten had the order reversed by paying him 9,000 aspers.

  One more thing, link aspers. I am unsure whether aspron or akçe is suitable here... Constantine ✍ 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am also unsure, because none would exactly fit per their description in their respective article. Aintabli (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some WP:DUPLINKs, such as Empire of Trebizond, in the article

  Removed that and a few more duplicate links. Aintabli (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman–Timurid conflict and death

• pushed until... took Mutahharten 'advanced as far as...where he took Mutahharten'?

  Already done by Dcdiehardfan.

• the latter's Anatolian campaign a brief summary of the outcome of the campaign is required here, as it gives context as to how Mutahharten was able to remain on his throne.

  Clarified that it was a major blow to the Ottomans.

  Still a bit vague, would suggest at least mentioning and linking the Battle of Ankara in the text; the average reader likely will not know that the main article relates to this. Constantine ✍ 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Linked the battle. Aintabli (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• continuous conflict between the stronger powers of Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu soon prevailed what does this mean? Was Erzincan fought over by the two larger powers? Did the emirate's existence continue or was it annexed?

  Clarified that it ceased to exist by then.

Family and origin

• Much of this section is repeated earlier. The origin part I would recommend moving to where Mutahharten is first introduced. Since it associates Mutahharten with the Eretnid dynasty, it helps explain his relations with them and Burhan al-Din better. But it would be a good idea to explicitly mention and analyze this, at least briefly.

  Removed that section and moved the first sentence to the background section. I can't analyze his relation to the Eretnid dynasty, because the sources do not really emphasize on that and his conflict with Burhan al-Din. Aintabli (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass. Constantine ✍ 13:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas:, thank you for the review. Feel free to let me know if I have not adequately addressed any of the comments. I look forward to further suggestions you might have, if any. Aintabli (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aintabli: I've completed a second read-through. Some minor issues left (see above), otherwise I am happy with the article. Nice work! Constantine ✍ 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks

• AGF on Yücel, as it is in Turkish
• I spotchecked Bryer, and the reference to p. 148 is incorrect, it should be 149. Otherwise it checks out. Constantine ✍ 08:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That page lacks a number, so I mistook it for an extension of some sort, but including it as 149 would be much more helpful. In any case, I've corrected the references. Aintabli (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Forgot to ping @Cplakidas. Aintabli (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.