This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
A fact from Timurnama appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that by using Timur as the subject of the fourth poem (Timurnama) of his Khamsa (quintet), its author Hatefi implied that the Turco-Mongol conqueror was a second Alexander the Great? Source: "Hatifi wrote a Khamsa (‘Quintet’) in emulation of the Khamsas of Nizami Ganjavi and Amir Khusrau Dihlavi, but replaced the earlier poets’ romances of Alexander/Iskandar with an epic about Timur, thus implicitly identifying Timur as another Alexander." (Melville, p. 1124)
Overall: Looks good to me! Interesting quote for an interesting piece of literature by an author and era that I'm personally unfamiliar with. That being said, do you have a source for "(it) is often viewed as the most important work by Hatefi"? This doesn't seem to be sourced to me. That's the only thing that stood out to me and I can change this to a green tick when this is addressed. Cheers! BaduFerreira (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BaduFerreira: Thank you for this valuable review! I certainly forgot to add a sentence and a reference for this claim in the body of the article; I much appreciate you catching this. I have added the respective sentence and a reference to an open access source. I hope this addresses your concern. Thanks again! WatkynBassett (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thank you for that. Added citation provides a source for the previously unsourced claim. I've gone ahead and updated my review to a green checkmark. BaduFerreira (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Interesting quote for an interesting piece of literature by an author and era that I'm personally unfamiliar with. That being said, do you have a source for "(it) is often viewed as the most important work by Hatefi"? This doesn't seem to be sourced to me. That's the only thing that stood out to me and I can change this to a green tick when this is addressed. Cheers! BaduFerreira (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)