Talk:Muhammad of Ghor/GA1

GA Review (Sangsangaplaz)

Unsuccessful. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sangsangaplaz (talk · contribs) 14:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Section

In the 'Early Years' section there is a redundant subsection called 'Title' while the previous subsection is called 'Name and Title'. They should be combined. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Or one or both of them should be renamed if appropriate. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understandability

The article uses a lot of words which is hard for users to understand such as 'condominium' (which is modernly used for apartments) and use of words to watch which can ruin the encyclopedic feel of the article. I will try to fix as much as I can though I will not make any major edits and i will make only minor edits. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Hold

Since this article meets all the criteria, when the above problems are addressed I will pass this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangsangaplaz (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

@Sangsangaplaz:The issues you pointed out above has been fixed now, could you please point out other minor issues ? Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 02:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After subsection

@Re Packer: I recommend renaming the aforementioned section to something more appropriate. Then this article is a pass.

@Sangsangaplaz: I did renamed it to the best it suits the content in the section which includs his birth year and title, though could you suggest anything more "appropriate"? Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 19:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed it to "Early life" now which probably is more nuanced then early career, isn't it more or less fine now ? Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 19:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry for the mistake I meant the Later subsection Sangsangaplaz (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangsangaplaz: Which section ? Please mention the name specifically. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 13:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangsangaplaz: I renamed "early carrer" sub section to "accession to the throne", think all these minor issues are resolved now and it should be pass. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 03:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review (Trangabellam)

Sources Section (Missing)

Please create an overview section on Sources and their follies, biases, etc.; see Nezak_Huns#Sources for a guide.

Birth Section

K. S. Lal needs to go; see Subrahmanyam (2023), et al.
His name is variously transliterated as Muizuddin Sam, Shihabuddin Ghuri, Muhammad Ghori and Muhammad of Ghor.

Such a framing is only used when dealing with some King X who was differently translated by historians writing in different languages - say, by Arabic and Chinese chroniclers. We don't have such a case here; hence, do away with the line.

According to the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, his birth name was "Muhammad" which is vernacularly spelt as "Hamad" by the Ghurids.

The italicized part is unencyclopedic trivia.

During his childhood, his mother used to call him "Zangi" due to his dark skin tone.

Perhaps introduce a link to Wikitionary's entry on زنگی.

After the coronation in Ghazna, he styled himself as "Malik Shihabuddin" and after his occupation of Khurasan, he took the title of "Muizzuddin" or "Mu'izz al-Din".

Shift this line to the relevant chronological sections. Boldface the stylized titles.

The synchronous accounts ...

What are these accounts? They have not been introduced before. Will probably be fulfilled by the proposed section on Sources.

Title Section

Do away with this seperate section; these will be discussed within the article. "Sultan-i-Ghazi" is not really a title, etc.

Accession to the throne

However, their efficient administration of the province, made him doubtful of their uprise and seeing a possible challenge to his own authority, he ordered his nephews to be imprisoned in the castle of Gharjistan.[8] Although, they were released from the captivity by his son Sayf al-Din Muhammad after the death of his father in 1161.

You meant uprising? Although anticipates a contrast; we have none, here.
Reframe it as, However, Ala al-Din soon grew wary of the brothers' increasing sway over the provinces and fearing an usurpation, had them imprisoned in the castle of Gharjistan. They would only be released ....

Sayf al-Din, later died in a battle against the nomadic Oghuzs of Balkh.

Why shall an average reader of our article care about how he died unless it involved our subject?

After their release from the captivity, "Tarik-i-Firishtah" states that the Ghurid siblings were reinstated in Sanjah, although the earlier account of "Tabaqat-i-Nasiri" stated that the hardship continued due to their financial conditions. Muhammad thus, took shelter in the court of his uncle Fakhruddin Masud who held the principality of Bamiyan as vassal of their uncle Alauddin Husayn.

Do we have conflicting sources? For example, TiF only has their reinstatement as governor while TiN only has them taking refuge? The situation is not clear from your construction.

Later, Fakhr al-Din Masud laid his own claim for the succession after Sayf al-Din death as the elder member of the Ghurid family.

This is horrible ungrammatical prose. Reframe as, After Sayf al-Din died, Fakhr al-Din Masud claimed the throne by virtue of being the eldest among the Ghurid clan.

Muhammad helped his brother in suppressing the revolt of Fakhruddin ...

Sorry, but two lines ago, you had the two being sheltered by Fakhr al-Din. So, rationally, they ought have helped him because it would have cemented their chance of succession upon his death? Or, did they take this power-vacuum to have a (succesful) shot at the throne?
Also, Fakhruddin was revolting against whom? The identity is important because indirectly (if not directly), the brothers came to his aid! And, how did they negotiate with him after suppressing the revolt?

his brother succeeded Sayf al-Din to the throne in 1163 and initially placed Muhammad as a minor officer in his court, which result in him retiring (unhappy with his position) to the court of Sistan where he spend a whole season.

placed > appointed.
unhappy with his position does not make much sense esp. as a bracketed appelation. Is it your aim to convey that Muhammad did migrate to the Court of Sistan but without resigning from his brother's Court? Such a conveyal seems anachronistic, though.
Whole season - an year?

However, later Ghiyath-al din sent an envoy to brought him back who subsequently placed him in charge of the southern part of the Ghurid domains which possibly included Istiyan and Kajuran.

to brought > to bring
I won't progress further; please get a GOCE copyedit done.

Overall

FAIL as of now. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam, if you are failing this nomination, please complete the necessary steps at WP:GAN/I#FAIL. Certainly, if this needs a GOCE copyedit, this nomination should not remain open until the copyedit is done, as the backlog there is months long. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2023 (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.