Talk:Gökböri

Comment

@Urselius: You reverted my edit with the comment "Not a typo - spelling of the title and standard British English variant - closer to Greco-Roman origins of the word)" I assume this was intended for someone else, since my edit that you reverted was removing an extraneous space from inside of a ref tag (which, really, shouldn't be there).--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Esprit15d: That's odd, because your edit comment included "Encyclopaedia → Encyclopedia" - your edit was indeed not this change, as is evident on checking, but the comment flagged a typo correction as I quoted. I reverted on the strength of the edit comment, as usual. Urselius (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Urselius: Ah! You know what, I use a semi-automated script to find typos. It found that typo, and I took it out of the list of changes because I saw that it was an alternate spelling. But I didn't realize it that the script still included that change in the comment. Sorry for the confusion. Anyway, looks like we got to the bottom of it. Happy editing!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gökböri/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• The source of Hattin Estoire d'Eracles.jpg is a dead link; and it needs an explicit US PD tag.

Done - I think

• Consider adding alt text to the images.

I don't know what that entails

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing which you will wish to check.

Alt text: optional, but covered under MOS:ALT.

I have carried out a limited number of spot checks, which raise no issues.

Earwig gives a green light re plagiarism.

Focused on the subject. NPoV and stable.

• "He was known as Manafaradin to the Franks of the Crusader states" Information in the lead should be repeated in the main body. This isn't.

Fixed

• US PD is fixed; thanks. The Source, under Summary, is still dead.

I have substituted another image - I think it is better as it is closer in date - it has an active source

• "700 - 7,000" The values in the range should be separated by an unspaced en dash, per MOS:ENTO. Similarly with the page range for Patton.

Done, but variations in dashes confuse me

You are not alone in that.

• "a religious college the Dar al-Hadith al-Muzaffariya" → 'the religious college Dar al-Hadith al-Muzaffariya'.

I would prefer "a religious college, the Dar al-Hadith al-Muzaffariya", largely because it is not generally well-known. For illustration, the difference between "He founded a college, the Slough College of Performing Arts", and "He founded Imperial College London".

Fine. That works.

• Gibb: as a work within a volume, "The Aiyubids" should be within inverted commas, not in italics.

Done

• Similarly, Hazard has the use of italics and inverted commas the wrong way round.

Done

• Çaǧatay should use the same approach.

This is a journal title, does it have the same treatment?

Yes. Article title within inverted commas, journal name in italics.

Done

A very nice little article. Is it headed for FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I was surprised, when I was reading sources for the Battle of Arsuf, that such a prominent lieutenant of Saladin didn't already have an article. No, FAC is not a place I want to go to again! Urselius (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It is surprising, after all this time, what lacunae there still are in Wikipedia's historical coverage.

ACR perhaps? A much friendlier and more relaxed environment. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Good work. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Section titles

@Urselius, according to MOS:HEAD, Section headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles, which includes WP:CONCISE. It should not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article, e.g., Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life. You have also restored an unsourced addition and reverted another edit of mine where I've removed redundant repetition of his name, which you have not addressed in your edit summary. Aintabli (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@AintabliThe article passed GA with most of these alleged defects. I have no particular investment in the Kurdish name, though as Erbil is and was a largely Kurdish city it seemed unobjectionable. Given that no article on Gökböri, a major lieutenant of Saladin, existed before I created it and put a large amount of effort in, I think my opinion should count for something, MOS notwithstanding. I have a certain amount of contempt for the MOS on many counts. Urselius (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Urselius, that it wasn't brought up in the GAR does not mean it was okay. Anyone can review a GAN and may not realize some minuscule details, and so there are limitations to the depth of a GAR. The Kurdish name is also WP:UNSOURCED as I have pointed out before and potentially irrelevant if it had no historical use, and the WP:BURDEN to add sources is on the editor who first added it or who restored it. I think you would benefit from starting a discussion to change the guidelines instead of not following their current version. Your contributions are precious, but our opinions should not carry weight over the guidelines regardless of how much we contributed to the article. Cheers, Aintabli (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

As a follow-up comment, the section title length is somewhat debatable as everyone may have their own interpretation of the guidelines, which are not really explicit on how long it may be. I see that you have removed Gökböri from the section titles as per the guidelines, though. Thank you for that. Aintabli (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the name in Arabic characters is also unsourced, I do not read Arabic, so cannot verify its accuracy. All the praise names rendered in the Roman alphabet are supported. Urselius (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

If it is not included in any of the sources, I believe it should also be removed. Aintabli (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead. Urselius (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Do you also believe it should read "Gökböri or Muzaffar ad-Din Gökböri," which is redundant in my opinion? Aintabli (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Praise names were important, Saladin is a praise name of the Sultan Yusuf. Gökböri was and is known by both his principal praise name, Muzaffar ad-Din, and his given name. Both are used in contemporary Arabic texts and he was known to the Franks by a version of his praise name, 'Manafaradin', both are also used in modern scholarship, but with a bias towards Gökböri, or its variations (Kukburi etc.). His mosque foundation in Erbil was called the Muzaferiyah, as is the minaret, which is its only surviving part. I am strongly of the opinion that both the given and praise names are important to record and are both supported by their use in relevant scholarship. However, for the infobox title, I think that just Gökböri would be better than both names, as the article itself is just named Gökböri. Urselius (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

My proposal is not to remove "Muzaffar ad-Din" from the lead but instead "Gökböri" so that it simply reads "Muzaffar ad-Din Gökböri" and not "Gökböri or ... Gökböri". Aintabli (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how that would improve things. Having an article called 'Gökböri' start with 'Muzaffar ad-Din Gökböri' would be confusing. See for example Al-Adil I the first name in the text is 'Al-Adil I', not 'al-Malik al-Adil Sayf ad-Din'. The first line is "Al-Adil I (Arabic: العادل, in full al-Malik al-Adil Sayf ad-Din Abu-Bakr Ahmed ibn Najm ad-Din Ayyub ...)", something like that would be fine, with the full name in brackets following 'Gökböri'. Urselius (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. I don't think it would be confusing in any way, since Gökböri would still be located at the beginning of the lead. And frankly, many articles of notable figures, especially rulers, start with the longer form of their name instead of repeating different combinations that the longer form already encapsulates. Aintabli (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead of the example article you've linked is quite messy and would benefit from some editing. Plus, there are also many counter examples: Al-Nasir Muhammad, Frédéric Chopin, and so on... Aintabli (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not think it is an improvement, but I have insufficient investment in my preference to continue its defence. Urselius (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)