Talk:Turkoman (ethnonym)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Uness232 (talk · contribs) 22:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary thoughts, and a note on the structure of this review
As the bulk of the changes since my previous review are copyediting, this review will not use a template. Instead, I will be dividing the review into two parts: 'from previous review', and 'new substantive edits' - the latter of which will cover the culture and religion sections, as well as other bits here and there.

From previous review

 * , "the Turkic language s family" makes more sense.
 * As there is no consensus on Encyclopedia Britannica as a WP:RS it is best avoided. If there is justification for it being used here, I will give it a pass, as other sources are generally reliable.
 * , "for the people of Oghuz Turkic origin" sounds clearer to my ears at least, but in certain circumtances both can be justified.
 * , "spread with the expansion of the area of residence of that part of the Oghuz Turks that converted to Islam" is much better I think.
 * , "more extensive period of establishment of beyliks " the repetition there seems unnecessary to me.
 * , Certain consistency issues, for example the spelling of Seljuq/k or Og(h)uz.
 * , "Turkmen s and Kurd s ish tribes Belliqan, Milan, Balashaghi, Qurashli, and Qochkiri."
 * , "Iraqi and Syrian Turkmens, descendants of the Oghuz Turks who mostly adhere to a Turkish heritage and identity." Is this supposed to be Turkish or Turkic?
 * , The lead is five (now six, actually) paragraphs, I believe that is too long per MOS:LEAD.
 * , The part that states that Turkomania became the preferred name for the time only includes a source from Encyclopedia Iranica, which does not mention the term even once. Even more troubling is the link from Turkomania, which as this article claims is in Eastern Anatolia, links to Turkmenistan.

New substantive edits
The most important problem that the new edits have caused is a rather confusing scope, according to GAC 3 (and also at times 4, depending on how you look at it). For example, the part about veiling presents a link to Paranja, a veil used in some parts of Central Asia. However, the paragraph this is taken from is about Asia Minor, where I have never seen any article mention Paranja. I believe the the appropriate veils for women in Asia Minor was the Yashmak, later largely replaced by the more conservative Çarşaf usually worn by upper-class urban women, and the headscarf, worn by lower-class urban and rural women. ✅

More problematic is the equivalence made between polygyny and lack of say in family matters. This paper, about the position of women in Bursa around the 17th century, asserts that women did have a say in family matters, as well as a fair amount of economic power (for example to sue people inside their family for ownership of a certain part of the house) through legal means. If this study is to believed, it generally puts the position of Anatolian women at somewhat of a higher position then many other monogamous cultures throughout the world at the time. (I provided this paper not to suggest that it is invariably true, but to point out that these types of broad generalizations are often less-than-true) ✅

Now, one might say that Bursa was under Ottoman rule, and that Ottomans weren't really  Turkomans, but this is the crux of the problem, actually. Where does Islamic Turkoman culture end and Islamic Greco-Persianate culture start? Were these cultures similar to the point where we can look at them without separating them? In the "notable dynasties" section, the Ottomans and Seljuqs are included, but the section seems to mostly talk about the change immediately after the conversion to Islam, which had been hundreds of years ago at that point. I think this makes most of the section problematic, and it could either be deleted (as culture is covered in Empire pages, which provide a better picture) or overhauled to better fit the scope of the article. ✅

The religion bit is much better, except for one problem, which falls into the same issue discussed above. "The warlike character of Turkomans" is a bit of a weird statement. Now, I am not doubting that pre-sedentary Turkomans were focused on war, as most Asian non-sedentary cultures were, but is that true for the sedentary empires? I would not think that the sedentary empires of Turkomans were any more warlike than the Islamic Caliphate or renaissance era Spain, for example. (I do not have access to the pages described in the source, so if that is what the source says I will accept this.) ✅

I previously talked about a consistency issue when using Turkoman and Turkmen, but as I read it for the last time, I've realized that it's good enough at explaining naming conventions.

Sourcing looks good, no problems there.

Overall

 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Done
Thank you very much for your professional expertise and accurate suggestions. All of them have now been thoroughly implemented, and I'm looking forward for your further remarks. Thank you once again and take care! -- Visioncurve Timendi causa est nescire  06:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem at all, I have done some copyediting and I am pleased to inform you that this article now fulfills all GA criteria! I would also like to say however, that I in no way possess professional expertise on history, and I am simply a Wikipedian trying my best. Thank you for the kind words though. Take care, Uness232 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)