Talk:Battle of Kırkdilim/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 17:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then say as much, because the map identifies the Eretnids and that will probably confuse readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

been overall an Ottoman success Awkward, perhaps "been an Ottoman success overall"

Per the MOS, if I am not mistaken, the links in the lede count separately from those in the main body, in other words, one is still expected to link at the first mention in the main body.

They do count separately, but there's no requirement to link it in the main body if already linked earlier. Considering that they're about an inch apart on my screen, I see no reason for the second link and it can be seen as kinda insulting as if you're presuming that the reader won't remember what they already read. And same with the link to Bayezid, even if it's not in such close proximity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to disagree here. I feel it important to have a link in the first mention in the main text, without having to go back to the lede, for whatever reason. Certainly as a reader I expect a link when a prominent member of the dramatis personae is introduced for the first time, regardless of its proximity to the lede.

Who owned Amasya at this time? The Jandarids? Perhaps specify that Isfendiyar Bey only got the northeastern portion of the principatility

Thanks a lot, as usual :) Constantine ✍ 17:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]