Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Junayd of Aydın

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Junayd of Aydın[edit]

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Junayd of Aydın (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A biographical article about a colourful, ambitious, capable, and ruthless figure, who played a central role in the Ottoman Interregnum and whose career epitomizes the shifting allegiances and power struggles of the period. The article was considerably expanded and rewritten, and includes not only the main primary source (Doukas), but also the chief modern scholarly studies on the subject and period in the English language. I am nominating it for A-class as a step towards eventual FA nomination. Constantine ✍ 09:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up both maps
  • File:Anadolu_Beylikleri.png is sourced to a deleted page - what is the source of the data presented?
  • File:Tamerlan.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:II._Murat.jpg
  • File:Aydinid_beylik_area_map.svg: what is the source of the data presented? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria! File:Anadolu_Beylikleri.png is sourced to two Turkish atlas, not to the deleted page. That simply was the original location in dewiki. "1-Koza Yayınları Tarih Atlası sf.42 2-Kanaat Yayınları Tarih Atlası sf.28" means "1) Koza Publications History Atlas p. 42, 2) Kanaat Publications History Atlas p. 28". File:Aydinid_beylik_area_map.svg is merely a representation of some localities with their Turkish and Greek names. There is no "data" as such that could be challenged for a source; the locations exist to this day, and the Greek names are both well-known and in actual use as recently as the 1920s. The other suggestions have been done. Constantine ✍ 20:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, just a couple of minor points from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • watch out for overlink, the duplicate link checker identified a couple of instances: Ottoman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Republic of Venice, Doukas (historian)
    • Hmmm, this is odd. I assume the tool has been changed some time recently, because it counts the links in the lede as well, which IIRC was not the case earlier. My understanding is that the lede and the main body of the article are to be regarded separately, especially when the article is a bit longer, and a term that occurs in the lede may re-occur only half-way through the main body... Most of the hits in the tool are precisely such cases where the duplicates are one in the lede and one in the main body. The couple of other instances have been fixed. Constantine ✍ 12:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Ref 1, why not present it with the author names like the other ones?
  • suggest providing a translation for the title of the Trapp and Beyer work
    • on both of these points: PLP is the common abbreviation of this work, and is always found so in literature, as it is a collective work where over a dozen scholars have collaborated. The citation uses the recommended format from the CD Version that I have, but may be a bit misleading; I have therefore expanded it to include all main contributors to the various volumes. On the name, a translation is provided in the link, and I think it a bit superfluous; I usually provide one for journal articles or works in non-Latin alphabet, where it is useful for the readers to understand what it is about, but the PLP is the standard reference work in the field. It would be like translating the Prosopographia Imperii Romani, the Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, or Le Monde. Constantine ✍ 12:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No dramas. I disagree with your reasoning because I feel that it alienates the lay reader who won't recognise things like "27977. Τζινεήτ.", or understand why PLP is different to "Mélikoff" in the citations. Nevertheless, I'm not here to be prescriptive. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert::Any other suggestions? Unclear areas? Difficult prose? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not at this time, thank you. All the best and thank you for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 G'day, great job on this article. I have a few comments:

  • Republic of Venice is still overlinked, as is Doukas in the Notes
  • no dabs or redirects
  • in the lead, should it be "in battle with Musa Çelebi"? Or some other explanation? Assassination?
  • "defect his cause" from? to?
  • "Sources about the period are many and come from many sources" is repetitive and possibly tautological. Could you rephrase?
  • are subashi and subassi the same word, meaning a type of governor? If so, consistency would help.
    • I cannot change it as it is a direct quote from the Italo-Latin; I did clarify that it is the Italian form of the title, however. Constantine ✍ 15:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • worth mentioning that Timur was Turco-Mongol for those that don't know
  • unless there is another Süleyman, Süleyman Çelebi should just be Süleyman after introducing him the first time
  • I'm not sure "Conversely..." is the right word here, as that would imply conflicting sources on who backed whom. In this case I suggest dropping the word
  • same as Süleyman with Mehmed and Mehmed I
  • suggest taking the sentence fragment beginning with "according to a different interpretation" and making it a sentence following this one
  • returned to Ayasoluk, Junayd
  • should it be "and the Gümlüoğlu family"?
  • "confront Mustafa. The two armies confronted" is a bit repetitive, perhaps "met"
  • thus Mustafa needs an initial cap
  • suggest "at this news" not "at these news"

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: In case you missed PM's comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HJ Mitchell, I had indeed missed them. I will have a look at them later today. Constantine ✍ 10:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker67, and thanks for taking the time to review this. Sorry for the delay, it completely slipped off my radar. I've taken core of the points you raised. Any other comments, on style, comprehensibility, etc.? I am still a bit unsure about the balance of information on Junayd himself and of wider events, without which however his career is incomprehensible. Any suggestions for further improvement would be welcome. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: just a nudge to revisit when you time. Cheers, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, Harry. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Cinderella157

  • The article appears (to me) to be written in an editorial style rather than a more neutral and encyclopedic summary style. This is a matter of tone, generally, but also results in words to watch - some of which are specifically identified and some of which are analogous. I give two specific examples: "From there he soon joined" and "ending the Aydınid line for good". I could give more.
  • There are some issues with grammar and punctuation. Some specific examples are: Parenthetic clauses are not opened and closed with appropriate punctuation (example: "the Aydınid brothers Isa and Umur II," should be " the Aydınid brothers, Isa and Umur II,"). "When Mustafa marched to confront Murad in Anatolia, however, Junayd" is a fractured sentence.
  • Some of the language is not common across the English domain. For example, gubernatorial, while (more) commonly understood in the US, is not a common expression elsewhere (and not here, where I am in Oz). There are other sentences that might be written more clearly. For example: It is not clear that Mehmed I is Mehmed Çelebi and therefore the brother of İsa Çelebi.
  • Direct quotes should have the citation specifically applied at the end of the quote and not rely on a citation a sentence or two further on or at the end of a paragraph. Similarly for, "Doukas related that Junayd put a noose around his neck and presented himself to the Ottoman ruler as a repentant sinner", this last part (underlined) might be considered editorialising, unless it is attributed to the author by enclosing the phrase in quote marks and applying a citation.
  • I observe that the sentence structure is often complex. This affects readability. In many cases, the structures can be readily simplified - improving readability without affecting accuracy.

I could make a more detailed list of the issues I have identified but this is (in my opinion) not a productive use of either your time or mine, since (on my side) the time spent in detailing specifics might easily exceed the effort in simply making the edit directly. On the otherhand, I don't want to be seen as "taking over". There are a couple of ways we might proceed. My general comments may be sufficient for you to address many of the issues I have identified. I am also happy to proved further examples or to make "example edits" with "indicative" comments. Can I suggest these as an initial way forward? I am quite prepared to copy edit the article and collaborate with you as a "content expert". Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cinderella157, and thank you for taking the time to help around with this article! I would be very grateful if you would copyedit it, since obviously your expertise in that area far exceeds mine. One slight reservation though about using "common" language: I am quite opposed to the notion that "uncommon" words should be avoided, as I see no point in deliberately limiting vocabulary to a least common denominator. That said, feel free to edit around, and I will be on hand to correct if any semantic errors result. Thanks in advance, Constantine ✍ 17:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cinderella157, if you think we are done, please indicate your support here. Again a big thanks for your help and contribution! Constantine ✍ 17:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have worked with Constantine to address the issues raised above per talk page. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from FactotEm (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lede: Taking advantage of the situation, he attacked the Aydınid brothers... I think you need to specify who "he" in this sentence is. From the way it's written it could be Bayezid or Timur, but I suspect it's actually Junayd.
Fixed by Constantine. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the lede: You introduce İsa Çelebi, Mehmed I, Süleyman Çelebi, Musa Çelebi, and Mustafa Çelebi, but to me they were just random names without context. I wonder if it's possible somehow to explain that they were all sons of Bayezid, and were the Ottoman princes involved in the civil war?
Fixed by Constantine. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In section "Start of the Ottoman Interregnum (1403–1405)", 4th para, It is unclear if by this time Junayd was a vassal of Süleyman as he became later. Kastritsis concludes that if he was, then Junayd's support of İsa was probably out of alignment with Süleyman's policy to support İsa against Mehmed. If Süleyman supported İsa, how can Junayd's support of İsa be out of alignment?
Fixed by Constantine. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In section "Takeover of the Aydınid beylik (1405–1406)", 2nd para, ...but Umur escaped. In support of his nephew, Umar, the ruler of Menteshe, Ilyas Bey, marched against Ayasoluk. I read this as "In support of his nephew, Umar, who was the ruler of Menteshe...", i.e. that there were two different men named Umar. Would suggest "...but Umur escaped. His uncle, Ilyas Bey, the ruler of Menteshe, marched against Ayasoluk in support." or similar.
Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section and para, ...against the 3,000 of Junayd and the Kara-subashi.[g] Maybe consider incorporating the text of note g, which explains who the Kara-subashi might be, into the main narrative?
Looked at this. The Kara-subashi is first mentioned in the Background. I acknowledge your comment but on the otherhand, the "detail" of the note would break the flow of the narrative. A solution that would reconcile the two was not readily apparent to me so I have left it alobe. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 3rd para, Having thus solidified his control over the Aydınid domains... Not sure that "solidified his control" is the right expression here. He had previously recognised Umur as lord of the Aydınid domains, and although he established followers, relatives and friends in (I assume) positions of power, he didn't actually solidify his position until he killed Umar and assumed rule of the principality.
Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In section "Between Süleyman and Mehmed (1406–1413)", 2nd para, Ragusan reports from June 1407... I've never heard of Ragusan before, read this sentence as if it was a person, then tripped over "indicate", thinking that it was a badly written construction. Maybe better written as "Reports from the Republic of Ragusa in June 1407..."?
Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Made further ce that might be even clearer. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 4th para, ...Junayd left his post and returned to Smyrna, where he regained his former domains..., but later in the same para, Junayd...was laying siege to Ayasoluk.... Wasn't Ayasoluk part of his former domain? If so, he can't have "regained his former domains" completely, or have I misunderstood?
Fixed Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I was really busy in RL and other stuff lately. I will be away from good internet access for the better part of the next two weeks, so I won't be able to address these points until after that. Constantine ✍ 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and made most of the changes above that you have not already made yourself. The rest are not, I think, grounds for denying A-Class. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FactotEm, I would like to tank you for your time and efforts. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thx. FactotEm (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Junayd_of_Aydın&oldid=1143876907"