User:Millsnaps/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Seljuk Empire

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am a History major and Art History minor who concentrates in early modern Europe. So, I am seeking to use this course as an opportunity to explore a non-Western history in-depth. Knowing about how much detail is inherent in histories of any given empire made me realize that it's likely that this specific article has many content holes. Researching an empire during a rich historical period (the high middle ages) that exercised dominion over such a vast amount of land offers an excellent means for me to begin my study of Turko-Persian history.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:


 * Seljuk's name is introduced in a rather abrupt way in this lead section. The lead simply says "Seljuk gave his name to both the empire and the Seljuk dynasty" without providing any context for who Seljuk was and from where he derived this power. Therefore, the lead section should provide some context for who Seljuk was, though the entry will go into greater detail on this topic in the section titled: "Founder of the Dynasty."
 * In a similar respect, thought the name "Turghil Beg" and his brother are hyperlinked, I have no clue who these figures are. One word describing their position or where they were from would place these important names into context.
 * Only one mention of a First Crusade is provided in the lead section. The fact that there were multiple crusades should be alluded to because these are discussed as separate sections under this Wikipedia page.
 * The lead section should also discuss the governance of the empire and the division of the empire. In addition, the "legacy" of the empire as described in the concluding section of the article is incongruent with what the lead suggests is the legacy of the Seljuk empire. The lead implies that this legacy is based in the development of a "Turko-Persian tradition" whereas the legacy section suggests that the Seljuk's brought "revival, energy, and reunion" to Islamic civilization.
 * I would like to see a time period in the opening sentence so that the reader automatically has perspective on when this empire was situated.
 * There is another discrepancy between the discussion on the "founder of the dynasty" (a section) and the lead. The section on the "founder of the dynasty" does not discuss the founder's relationship to the Oghuz Turks, whereas this is a focus in the lead.
 * The lead needs to allude to the fact that art will be included in the article and provide room for the reader's understanding of the role that the Sultans (as named in the family tree) played in the Empire.

Content:


 * Based on the conclusion and its reference to astronomy, language, and rich civilization, I would appreciate hearing more about these three things and how they played a role within the Seljuk empire
 * What about wealth and finances in the Seljuk empire? Trade? Clearly, it was an expansive empire, so I would like to hear more about how such an expansive empire operated on a more technical level in the day-to-day.
 * I appreciate the division of the section titled "expansion of the empire" by ruler, but more clarity could be introduced here. Why is this the best way to detail the history of the expansion of the empire (by ruler)? In addition, some of these sections go into too much detail on the personal lives on each of these rulers as to where it gets confusing how their rule relates to the expansion of the empire.
 * The governance section is not detailed enough, especially when looked at next to this list of several rulers. Did the systems of governance not change under each ruler? In addition, what is the specific relevance of choosing a photo of a coin to display in this section?
 * I would like to gain additional understanding of what happens after the conquest of the Seljuk empire by the Khwarezm and Ayyubids. The imposing list in the middle of this (second-to-last) section also seems out-of-place.
 * The section on Seljuk art is bizarre. Far too many images with no explanation as to what the significance of each piece of art is. Substantial research has to be done on these artworks.
 * Also, what was the role of religion in this empire and how does it relate to the creation of these artworks? It's worth examining, especially considering that the opening sentence of the Lead presents the empire as a Sunni Muslim empire.

Sources and References:


 * Most sources appear to be reasonable sources. However, I want to point out one that seems questionable because it might not actually be an independent source:
 * Jackson, P. (2002). "Review: The History of the Seljuq Turkmens: The History of the Seljuq Turkmens". Journal of Islamic Studies. Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. 13 (1): 75–76. doi:10.1093/jis/13.1.75.
 * Relatively old sources:
 * Michael Mandelbaum, "Central Asia and the World", Council on Foreign Relations (May 1994), p. 79
 * Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991), 574.
 * Stephen P. Blake, Shahjahanabad: The Sovereign City in Mughal India, 1639–1739. Cambridge University Press, 1991. pg 123: "For the Seljuks and Il-Khanids in Iran it was the rulers rather than the conquered who were "Persianized and Islamicized"

Images and Media:


 * Evaluate the purpose of the image of the coin under the section "governance."
 * The image of the Mausoleum does not bother me as much. However, I would attach a hyperlink to the word "mausoleum" to reduce any confusion for the reader. On another note, it is worth evaluating the extent to which this image relates to the expansion of empire... though it relates to Sanjar, does it actually belong in this section?
 * The images of the maps are useful (just for putting things in a geographic perspective)
 * Both paintings on this wikipedia page that have images of (painted) figures appear to be orientalist works. I would definitely re-evaluate this and choose instead to incorporate works that are not orientalist representations.

Organization and Writing Quality:


 * Frequent use of passive voice
 * The "First Crusade" and "Second Crusade" sections are the only sections that appear to come out of nowhere, at least with respect to the titles. I would probably merge these two into one section that's titled "Conflict & Crusade" or something of that sort. Otherwise, all of the titles when taken together are notably less cohesive.

Tone and Balance:


 * The tone presented is very neutral.
 * There's no strict/clear presentation of minority or majority viewpoints. It does, however, clearly state that one fact is disputed under the Sanjar section, which I appreciate & view as something that loans additional credibility to the article as a whole.
 * Perhaps I can add more of this sort of thing (acknowledging the limitation of disputed facts) as I work through the article

Talk Page Discussion:


 * I expected the Talk Page to be slightly longer. There are not many discussions present here.
 * This entry on Wikipedia has captured the interest of many projects, including Wikiproject Religion, Wikiproject Iran, Wikiproject Turkey, etc...
 * Some of the conversations include:
 * "Issue with Turko-Persian label" (allegedly a "narrow" term)
 * "Seljuk Flag"
 * A complaint about the dynastic template (I am assuming this is the family tree/line of Sultans)
 * ... And general, relatively vague conversations about the spelling of Seljuk and how the empire should be referred to

Overall Impression:


 * There is much work to be done on this text, and potential means of improvements are discussed above
 * This piece's strength arises from the extent to which it covers. It does not go into enough detail on everything that it covers, but it manages to discuss many topics under one umbrella, the umbrella being that of the Seljuk empire. It is not as though I am working with no information whatsoever!