Talk:Oghul Qaimish/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2024 (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

Nominator: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 06:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a review written for this some time within the next week. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, I've posted the review below. There are two main issues with the article right now. The first is with sentence structure, where several ideas are strung together into single sentences divided by several commas throughout the article. The second is the spot checks. While not quite enough for a quickfail in my opinion, the WP:CLOP is something that needs to be looked at more closely. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The body is long enough that it should probably be split into two or three sections, depending on where the best dividing points are. And while I'm personally ambivalent about this, some editors dislike "biography" as a heading.
- Split.
The article is comma-heavy, at some points making it harder to read. Once there are three or four commas in a sentence (not counting lists), it's worth considering whether the sentence should be restructured or split in two.
- I've attempted to do this. Let me know your thoughts.
and the surviving remnants of the tribe – "remnants" in this context makes me think of material things in the tribe as opposed to its population. I suggest switching "surviving remnants" with "survivors" or something similar.
- Adjusted.
In the early 1220s... – Related to the comment about commas above, this sentence in particular is hard to follow, and it's difficult to tell what's referring to whom.
- Hopefully better now.
Oghul Qaimish was given as a wife to Güyük – Do we know who gave her to Güyük?
- No.
because of her own background – More context would be helpful.
- Clarified simply.
and one unnamed child – As in we don't know the name or the child was never given a name? It could be read either way.
- Adjusted.
Oghul Qaimish is not known to have any influence – Most of this paragraph only has limited relevance to Oghul Qaimish herself. It needs to be trimmed down so it only has the information that's absolutely necessary for the rest of the article to make sense.
- Trimmed.
Oghul Qaimish was not competent in politics – Is "competent" the best word here? It sounds more like a judgement than a description.
- Changed to "confident".
She was soon comprehensively outmanoeuvred. – This doesn't add any new information or give more insight. It should be expanded on or removed.
- Yes it does, it gives the new information that she was outmanoeuvred.
made good arguments in favour of Shiremun's candidacy – Good according to whom? This is subjective.
- Adjusted.
a lowly falconer – Why "lowly"?
Is there any reason for the empty "notes" section?
- Removed both.

Spot checks:

[2] Atwood 2004, p. 398. – Good, though reusing the exact phrase not uncommon made me worry about WP:CLOP.
- Gone with comma exodus.
[8] Broadbridge 2018, p. 201. – Oghul Qaimish was a poor strategic match for Güyük is very close to the wording of Oghul-Qaimish was a strategically poor choice for Güyük’s senior wife
- I did not find any alternate ways to say "strategic marriage".
[14] May 2018, pp. 127–128. – What here supports that her policies and appointments were unpopular?
- Removed in trimming.
[19] Atwood 2004, p. 419; May 2018, p. 132. – she had no recognisable political agenda steals its wording from she had no discernible political agenda in Atwood.
- Again, difficult to paraphrase, but I've done my best.
[26] Atwood 2004, p. 419. – Does anything here support Shocked by this result?
- Removed in comma exodus.
[29] Broadbridge 2018, pp. 209–210. – Good.
[32] May 2018, p. 138; Broadbridge 2018, pp. 218–219. – Good.

A few other notes that don't require action for GA:

The precise year of Oghul Qaimish's birth is unknown seems like an unusual sentence to start a biography with, but I have no alternative suggestions.
- I've found Mongol biographies tend to begin slightly oddly, probably because it's nearly always the most unclear part of the whole thing.
Atwood 2004, pp. 419. should be "p."
- Fixed.
One of the Broadbridge citations ([28] as of this review) is missing a page number.
- Fixed, 'twas a problem with sfn.

Thanks for the comments Thebiguglyalien and apologies for both the somewhat late response and the rather substandard article—it was written in rather a rush for the latest WiG challenge and it should have received more polish than it did. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2024 (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.