Talk:Irtash/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 01:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I will review this. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 01:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead

 * "Following this, Irtash's brother Ridwan moved to Aleppo and proclaimed himself the new emir. His other brother Duqaq's declaration of a new emirate in Damascus separated the Syrian Seljuk state into two and started a rivalry between the two brothers." — "him" and "his" creates confusion when there are names involved so often. Even if they get repeated, please use the full names for clarity.

Background

 * Link — "Malik-Shah I"; " Fatimid"; "Damascus" (at the first mention); "suzerainty"; "city of Ray" (and just write "Ray" instead); "Duqaq"; "Ridwan"; "Abu Talib"; "Behram"; "atabeg"; "Baalbek"; "Crusaders" — when mentioned for the first time.
 * "He was one of five sons of Tutush,[6] the brother of Malik-Shah I,[7] and the mayor of Ganja in Arran." — It could help to expand on this sentence. I am confused as to who was the brother of Malik-Shah I and who was the mayor (if they are the same person).
 * "Tutush claimed the Seljuk throne, as he was the only adult" — "only adult" of high enough standing, close to Malik-Shah I, or related to him? Clarification on that will help.
 * "Terken Khatun,[16] then tried to reach out to Tutush, but died suddenly in 1094." — Reach out for what purpose? Perhaps explain that in there.
 * "while another brother Duqaq" — Is this a different "Duqaq" from the one mentioned before? If not, just "while Duqaq" would be cleaner.
 * "founding a separate emirate there." — Was there a specific name of this emirate? If yes, please mention it.
 * "in the Holy Land." — Write the name of the place instead of "the Holy Land".

Rule in Damascus

 * Link — "Tutush II"; "Toghtekin"; "al-Rahba" — when mentioned for the first time.
 * "modern Turkish historian İbrahim Duman believes that to be an error" — Is there a particular reason why he believes that to be an error? Mentioning his reasoning would be useful instead of plainly stating it.
 * "one of his castles" — Write where it might have been, if that is known.
 * "after Irtash's escape" — "escape" implies he was caught somewhere, but I don't see how or when he was caught. Could you please clarify this?

Alliance with Baldwin I

 * Link — "Bosra"; "Ascalon" — when mentioned for the first time.
 * "The Fatimid emir of Ascalon" — Name of the emir?
 * "The rivalry between Irtash and Toghtekin was a very important opportunity for Baldwin I to take over Damascus, and by using Irtash, he could have eliminated his nemesis, Baldwin I, and captured Damascus at the same time." — I am failing to understand who was the nemesis and who wanted to defeat whom.

Last years

 * "Sevim assumes incorrectly that Irtash died in 1105 on his way to al-Rahba" — Why did Sevim assumed that, why is this considered to be incorrect, and according to whom is this incorrect?
 * "Duman argues Irtash may have died in 1107, when he was fifteen. Duman, taking Irtash's age into account, considers the possibility of him living for many years, though he ruled no city, nor was he in the foreground of subsequent events." — Both sentences are contrary to one another. The first one says that Duman argues that Irtash died at age 15, and the other sentence says that Duman argues that Irtash lived a long life. Can you clarify on this?

Comments by Solavirum
Lead Background Reign References
 * Fixed the Lead.
 * Abu Talib and Behram shouldn't be linked. There are no articles about them and won't be in the future I think. They are simply not notable enough.
 * Tried to elaborate more on Malik Shah. Malik was the sultan, and Tutush's brother, while Tutush also served as the mayor of Arran. (?)
 * At the time the children of Malik Shah were minors. Berkyaruq 13, Muhammad was 11, while Mahmud was 4 years old. Tutush claimed the throne as Malik Shah's brother and well, and (at the time) the only guy in the dynasty who was not a child.
 * Clarified that part.
 * Terken was trying to install her 4-year-old son, Mahmud, to the throne. Her allies were defeated against Berkyaruq, so she tried to get Tutush and his Syrian army's aid.
 * Specified it.
 * Sources refer to that "separate emirate" as the "Emirate of Damascus". Though I don't know if it would be better to repeat "Damascus" in the same sentence. Changing it to "...moved to Damascus, founding an independent Emirate of Damascus there".
 * Specified it.
 * the Holy Land is (mostly) in modern-day Israel and Palestine. It was called "the Holy Land" back in the 1000s, but was called Land of Israel and Palestine before. What do you suggest? I'm linking "Holy Land" for the time being.
 * The area's WP:COMMONNAME is simply the "Holy Lands". Crusades article also uses that naming.
 * Fixed the other things.
 * there is no article for "Tutush II" at the time, but consider that problem solved.
 * Duman simply says that al-Qalanisi incorrectly gave that date, and Al-Azhari just repeated that mistake. Nothing more.
 * The source didn't clarify the location of the castle. "When Irtash captured Rahbah and returned to Damascus, Toghtekin did not let him into the city. Thereupon, Irtash went to the castles belonging to himself".
 * "Irtash's escape" should be when he sneaked out of the town in October/November '04.
 * Reworded those parts.
 * I don't recall Duman or Gibb mentioning the emir's name. But I think I can find it if I dig deep enough.
 * His name was Gamal al-Mulk (Brett 1995).
 * My bad, the "nemesis" is Toghtekin. Fixed it.
 * It is Duman who says that Sevim was wrong. His basis is that Irtash was in al-Rahbe in 1107. Clarified it.
 * Clarified the last part. He basically says there's nothing more about him after that date, so he maybe died. But he also says that he could have lived for more years. His later life is just ambiguous.
 * That Cahen source most likely has a page. I will ask the Wikipedia library about it. Interestingly, it wasn't brought up here.
 * Fixed
 * Yeah I didn't take much time on arranging the sources. Consider it done.
 * Fixed the page problem.

. thank you for taking your time to review this. I had this article copyedited, but it seems like some issues are still present. I'll add more ticks when it is all done. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  15:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , side note: Your signature is fantastic. — The Most Comfortable Chair 03:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Status query
Solavirum, The Most Comfortable Chair, where does this nomination stand? As far as I can tell, nothing has been posted here for over a month, and the article has also not been edited in that time period. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It was on my part. I had my exams till yesterday so I couldn't focus here much. But I'm back and we'll continue to fix the issues. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  08:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is all right, . I am almost completely occupied until August 5. Please take your time and my apologies for the inactivity on my end. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, no worries. In the meantime, I think I was able to touch upon everything here. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  12:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I believe I've concluded my part. Just tagging as a reminder. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  08:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Solavirum, I have just checked with The Most Comfortable Chair on their talk page, and they won't be returning to the review. They send their apologies for not posting here sooner. How would you like to proceed? We can put this back in the pool of unreviewed nominations and start fresh: it will be the second-oldest unreviewed nomination, and probably pick up a new reviewer within a couple of weeks, or we can leave the review open and request a second opinion, which could take a shorter or longer time; there are fewer people who answer second opinion requests, and not all of them want to complete a review. Please let me know your preference. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , the article is set to go, everything's done, every question is checked. But unfortunately, I can't renominate this, per this, and these people are ready to appeal for a potential site-wide ban for me in any single edit of constructive essence. This nomination will have to get declined, and I'll be (forced to) waiting for my extended topic ban to end (which God knows when will happen) in order me to renominate this already [technically] reviewed and finished article. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  18:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Solavirum, this wouldn't be a renomination. It would be the same nomination, continuing on from April 5. The problem would be that a new reviewer is likely to see things that the original reviewer didn't see, and ask for more fixes, whether via a second opinion or a completely new review, though a second opinion might be satisfied with the fixes you've done so far. Is there anyone you know who might be willing to "adopt" the nomination should any issues be found, since you really can't make any edits to the article any more? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder if would adopt the nomination. --► Sincerely:  Sola  virum  16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Solavirum and BlueMoonset: I wouldn't mind adopting this nomination. { &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this is not really my forte. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * MJL, thank you very much for offering. Since Solavirum is clearly interested in finding someone to adopt the nomination, I'm going to put the nomination back into pool of unreviewed nominations, and I imagine it will be picked up for review in short order. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)