The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 March 2023 [1].

---

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was the article that started my Wikipedia journey, I suppose you could say. I created it early last year, expanded it, got it to GA, went on to other stuff, and here I am back at the beginning. Nominating it on a whim and on Gog's suggestion, as my second FA candidate (and a potential source of WikiCup points). This is an incident during the Mongol invasion of Khwarazmia, where Genghis Khan spectacularly bypassed a static defensive strategy, forced one of Asia's greatest cities to surrender in a week, burnt the place down, enslaved most of the inhabitants, delivered a surprisingly theological speech, and naffed off to do more killing, burning, and enslaving. Very Genghis. Hope you enjoy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, blame me ... grumble .... moan ... I suppose I had better look it over then. Reserving my spot. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The city of Bukhara was a major trading and cultural centre". Consider adding 'the' or 'a', as appropriate, before "cultural".

• I'm not sure either makes sense, so I've changed to "a major centre of trade and culture". Better?

• "A Mongol force, estimated to number between 30,000 and 50,000 men, however managed to traverse the Kyzylkum Desert, previously thought to be impassable for large armies." Suggest 'A Mongol force, estimated to number between 30,000 and 50,000 men, traversed the Kyzylkum Desert, previously thought to be impassable for large armies.'

• Done

• "before it was breached." Breached and stormed, or breached and they surrendered?

• Breached and stormed.

And in the main article?

• "The Mongol army killed everybody in the citadel". What about the rest of the garrison?

• Either killed in the sortie or surrendered with the city.

• "within a fairly short space of time". Delete "fairly".

• Done.

• "a library of 45,000 books". Just checking that they were definitely books.

• I do mean books. The region was renowned for the quality of its paper (which rivalled Chinese standards) and for the productiveness of its bookbinders.

• "which had originally been commissioned in 1121". Does this need "originally"?

• Probably not.

• "By 1215, they themselves had been subjugated by the Khwarazmians"> Delete "themselves". (Who else would they be?

• I think I may have slipped into Latin syntax there. Oops.

• "Outraged, Genghis left his ongoing war against the Chinese Jin dynasty, leaving only a minimal force behind, and rode westwards in 1219." Perhaps explicitly mention that he took some troops wilh him?

• Done

• "Estimates range from as few as 75,000 to as many as 700,000". Would that be estimates by contemporaries?
• I think a strong case could be made for including most or all of all three Notes in the main article.

• I don't mind, so I've done so.

• "then descended onto Otrar and besieged it." Perhaps "onto" → 'on'?

• Done.

• "As the Kyzylkum was thought to be impassable by large armies". State by whom.

• Don't know who. Timothy May: "The wily Mongol leader led his army through the Kizil Kum desert, thought to be impassable by such a large force"; May is a leading historian on the Mongol Empire, and cites a dizzying array of primary sources for this one sentence, few of which I have access to: "Juwayni/Qazvini, v1, 82–3; Juvaini/Boyle, 106–7; Juzjani/Habibi, v2, 653; Juzjani/ Raverty, 976–8. RD/Karimi, 360–2; RD/Thackston1, 246–7; RD/Thackston2, 173–4; Ibn al-Athir, 365–7; Ibn al-Athir/Richards, 207–9."

Ok. Optionally, maybe insert 'at the time' or 'by contemporaries'?

• "the manouevre has been considered a masterstroke of warfare." State by whom.

• Done.

• "The Khan's march through the Kyzylkum had left his field army impotent"> This construction has the Khan's army impotent.

• So it does. Corrected

• "the citadel itself was taken in a fortnight". Taken how?

• Breached by siege engines and stormed, presumably; as everyone inside was killed and the Mongols hadn't quite got into the habit of doing paperwork, there are no precise details and all the sources treat it as a formality.

Ok, but the lead now states "breached and stormed".

• "less than two weeks"; "a fortnight". Which?

• Twelve days, to be precise; clarified.

• "given a speech at the Friday Mosque". Was that the actual name of the mosque?

• No, it's a Muslim term, which I have now linked.

I thought it might be. Lower case m then?

• "which would follow afterwards in 1220 and 1221." Delete "afterwards".

• Done

• "Shah Muhammad would die destitute". "would die" → 'died'.

• Done.

• "but was eventually crushed at the Battle of the Indus." When was this?

• Nov '21. Added.

That was a good read. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, Gog the Mild. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely stuff. A couple of comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I've decapitalised mosque, added a "contemporaries", and changed "stormed" to "taken", which I feel reflects the detail (or lack of such) in the sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For your use of quote marks, see MOS:DOUBLE.

• Blaming that on inexperienced Airship

• Suggest linking vassal; vassalage is not a common word, except among those who sweat on WP...

• Done.

• Ditto Central Asia, even though it's inside a quote.

• Done.

• I'm wondering if para 2 of Background could be clarified; you've got a difficult job, with so many names of tribes, people and places.

• I believe the name-abundance is due to an earlier demand to condense a bloated section. It's definitely condensed now; whether it is clear is another thing. I would welcome any suggestions.

• I think "common enemy" is the usual phrase, but.

• Done

• Not sure if "apprehensive" is quite the right word. But I know what you're getting at.

• I think it works. Do words like worried/alarmed/concerned work better for you?

• Does al-Nasawi have an article?

• He does indeed.

• You could probably lose "change in attitude to the memory of" and tighten that sentence to something like, "The chronicler al-Nasawi attributes this to an unintended earlier encounter with Mongol troops, whose speed and mobility frightened the Shah".

• Done

• Perhaps "Genghis left his ongoing war"

• Done

• "modern historians": needs citing otherwise we are weighing the historiographical consensus in Wikivoice (OR). However, "several", plus the cites you provide in n.b would resolve this.

• I've gone for your second suggestion, Serial Number 54129. I should note that every historian since Barthold has gradually decreased their estimates from a maximum of 200,000, but annoyingly none of them bother to note that. I think that's all of your comments responded to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Forfce/forces repetition: "army" in the second usage perhaps. Or even, "TThe Mongols..." would work.

• Rephrased.

• "As the Kyzylkum was thought to be impassable " ^[why?] and possibly ^[who?]

• To the first, it's a desert; to the second, the Khwarazmians. May (cited) says "The wily Mongol leader led his army through the Kizil Kum desert, thought to be impassable by such a large force."

• "has been considered a masterstroke" probably another ^[who?] I'm afraid.

• Sources at end of sentence. I can cite by name in the body, if that's better?

(talk page stalker) I think that would be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.

• First sentence of 'Aftermath' needs citing.

• Done

• " the rest of Bukhara; the Mongols set fire" I'd suggest creating two sentences at the semi-colon.

• Done

• That's mine. Nice article, cheers. SN54129 16:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, I've responded to most of your comments; will get to the final one shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, all is done here. I'll respond to the two below shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SN54129, this looks ready for a revisit when you're ready... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Ian: I was making good my escape from Gog's incursion from the Indus... AirshipJungleman29 has nicely wrapped this one up. Pleased, of course, to support this article's promotion. SN54129 14:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding alt text

• Done.

• File:Genghis_Khan's_Middle_Eastern_campaigns_1216-1224.jpg is very difficult to read and interpret as presently designed

• But the detail... File:Genghis Khan empire-en.svg might be better I suppose...

• File:Bukhara01.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:UZ_Bukhara_Samanid-mausoleum.jpg, File:Bukhara_sights8.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military history is not my specialty, so consider this a non-expert prose review.

• "Bukhara was caught completely by surprise," Not sure about this phrasing, as I'm concerned about MOS:IDIOM or sensationalism. Maybe, "Bukhara was surprised," "Bukhara was surprised by the Mongol's attack", or something similar? Feel free to workshop or keep as-is.

• Possibly a little sensationalist, yes, although that is the general tone of the sources. I'll tweak.

• "The Mongol army killed everybody in the citadel and enslaved most of the population." The population of what? The city? i would clarify.

• Done.

• "Rossabi indicates that the total" This is the first mention of Rossabi in the article: I suggest using the full name and wikilinking to Morris Rossabi if this is him.
• "while Smith gives an approximation of around 130,000." Same as the above, suggest using the full name in the first mention.
• "The minimum figure of 75,000 is given by Sverdrup," same as above.

• All done.

• "Genghis soon arrived with his youngest son Tolui, and split the invasion force into four divisions: while Chagatai and Ogedai were to remain besieging Otrar, Jochi was to head northwest in the direction of Gurganj, and a minor detachment was sent to take Khujand, but Genghis himself took Tolui and around half of the army — between 30,000 and 50,000 men — and headed westwards." This is quite a long sentence. Maybe place a period after Gurganj, and delete the word "and" there?

• Done

• "the historian Peter Golden termed the relationship" The people mentioned above did not get an introduction to their credentials, but this person does. Why the discrepancy? Perhaps either everyone gets a credential mention (my recommendation) or none of them do.

• I think I'll go for none.

• "The chronicler Juvaini records that the" This is the second mention of Juvaini in the article: I suggest moving the credentials "The chronicler" to his first mention and wikilinking him.

• Done

• "believed to have been executed in 1206.[32][26]" Although not necessary, I like it when the refs are in numerical order.

• Fair enough

• "Ata-Malik Juvayni," Is this the same person as Juvaini? If so, why is there a difference of spelling in the article? Should it be standardised?

• Oops. Has been now.

• "The Mongols set fire to the city in an attempt to flush out the holdouts, but since most structures in the city were wooden the soon-uncontrollable fire reduced most of the city to cinders, including the famed library." I don't like the flow of this sentence. Perhaps, "The Mongols set fire to the city in an attempt to flush out the holdouts; since most structures in the city were wooden, the soon-uncontrollable fire reduced most of the city to cinders, including the famed library." This adds a semi-colon after holdouts and a comma after wooden. Thoughts?

• Done—also removed the "but".

• "Most of the stone structures which were left standing by the fire were razed by the Mongols," Perhaps, "Most of the stone structures left standing by the fire were razed by the Mongols," (removed "which were") or "Most of the stone structures, which were left standing by the fire, were razed by the Mongols" (added two commas)
• " including the first Po-i-Kalyan mosque, although the Kalyan minaret was left standing." Perhaps " including the first Po-i-Kalyan mosque; the Kalyan minaret was left standing."

• Both done.

• "the city's craftsmen who were sent to factories and instructed to produce Mongol weaponry, and all remaining men of fighting age were conscripted into the Mongol forces." Delete the word "who"

• Typo.

• "eventually crushed at the" crushed might be MOS:EUPH, maybe replace with defeated?

• Done

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when you have done through these. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, thank you for some excellent prose comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My comments were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Qarakhanids ... due to their large population and territory. Can a dynasty have a population?

• Unsure, so altered.

• Link Naiman to Naimans.
• Link Otrar also in the main text.

• Both done.

• ..., although several modern historians consider numbers over 200,000 exaggerated. The highest estimates were made by classical Muslim historians such as Juzjani and Rashid al-Din. Consider changing the sequence of the two statements, because modern historians are listed in the following sentence.

• Removed a sentence and reorganised.

• Give a short explanation for "tumen".
• Link Jebe.
• Consider introducing Jochi, Chagatai and Ogedai as Ghengis Khan's sons, and Jebe as a Mongol general.

• All done.

• ...the Peter Golden... The?

• Oops

• ...at the Irghiz River... Already linked.

• Redone.

• ...the first Po-i-Kalyan mosque... When the Po-i-Kalyan mosque is mentioned for the first time in the article, it is not mentioned as the first mosque. Borsoka (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• First unnecessary.

• Thanks for some very pertinent comments on things that had eluded me, Borsoka. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for this interesting and thoroughly researched article. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @FAC coordinators: since this article has now attracted three supports, and is (I believe) only now waiting on a source review, could I nominate another one? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi AJ, like to see the source review before a new nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same here - would generally prefer the source review to be completed before a second nom is granted. Hog Farm _Talk 13:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the quick response. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the sources listed under "Medieval" should give the modern citation information for the work you actually consulted. E.g. for Rashid al-Din, you consulted an edition by Thackston, but you don't give the publisher or year of publication of that edition.
  • Done where possible.

    Why is it not possible for the others? For al-Hamawi, for example, you have citations that make use of that source, so you must have a version that you consulted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I had to go digging in dusty tomes; deleted one as couldn't find the modern citation information, but found the other and added it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You're inconsistent about the use of the publisher location field -- for example Barthold, Blair, and Mote have no location; Emin, Man, and May have location.
• You give an ISBN for Richard Nelson Frye, but 1965 is too early -- did you consult a reprint? If so I'd use the orig parameter to give the 1965 date.
• For FN 40 you give the website as whc.unesco.org; that's really the domain name -- the website is "UNESCO: World Heritage Convention".
  • All done.
• The image File:Genghis_Khan_empire-en.svg says it's been superseded; I didn't scan the two images to see what the differences are, but can you confirm that you're using the appropriate version? And can you provide a citation for the caption, as sourcing, since the image doesn't give a clear source for what it shows.
  • I don't really understand why the image was superseded, so I've changed to the newer one, and added two sources on Commons.
• For Emin you give the title as "Muslims in the USSR Мусульмане в СССР [Muslims in the USSR]." Presumably the first part should have only the Cyrillic?
  • Too many parameters. Fixed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the delay, Mike Christie. Above addressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck all but one above, but I noticed something else. Now that you've added modern edition dates to the medieval sources, you have citations such as "Juzjani 1873". I looked at several other FAs and there's no consistency in how citing primary sources is handled, but this seems an odd way to do it -- combining an old source with a more modern date. I don't think the FA criteria address this, so this is just a suggestion, but wouldn't it make more sense to make this "Raverty 1873"? It is Raverty's translation that you're citing, after all. To be clear, if you decide to keep it the way you have it now, that wouldn't stop me from passing the source review. However, see the related unstruck point above -- we do need consistency across all the primary sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, I suppose that might make sense. I don't know how the citation template would handle the parameters that way—maybe there's a way for the translator parameter to take the main place or something? Apologies, but I don't think I can figure that out right now. Otherwise, I believe all is handled.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Re your last point, I'm not sure I completely follow what the issue is, but as you now have a consistent format it doesn't matter for FAC. It might also be worth saying that if you have a format in mind you would prefer, but you can't get the citation templates to reflect it, you don't need to use the templates -- they're not required, and I know of some nominators that don't use them. (Though I can't to be honest think of a recent nomination that didn't use templates.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review:

• The link on "traversed" seems like an Easter egg.
• previously thought to be impassable suggest "considered" rather than "thought to be"
• The work of skilled craftsmen and artisans was appropriated by the Mongols us active voice wherever possible.
• while others were conscripted into the armies What others and whose armies? "Work" seems to be the subject of the sentence
• devastation was relatively mild can you have "mild devastation"? Seems like an oxymoron to me.
• termed the relationship between the Shah and his mother as "an uneasy diarchy" lose the "as"

• All above addressed.

• The Shah distrusted most of his commanders, with the only exception being lose the "with", though that would arguably leave a comma splice so I'd suggest a semicolon

• done the first part, but I don't mind a splice.

• states that 50,000 were sent to aid Otrar, and states that there were at least 20,000 in Bukhara Two "states" in close proximity; you could just get rid of the second one.
• Sverdrup, however, claims that there were between two and five "however" and "claims" are both words to watch and you have them right next to each other. The "however" doesn't add anything and the "claims" casts (possibly undue) doubt.
• historians such as H. Desmond Martin and Timothy May have considered the manouevre Are these modern historians? If so, suggest saying that.

• All done.

• The Khan's march through the Kyzylkum I'm guessing that apostrophe should be after the s?

• I don't believe so—there aren't multiple khans.

• Vasily Bartold suggested that this may have been Jamukha, an old friend-turned-enemy of Genghis.[31] Most historians consider this unlikely Might be helpful to specify when these people were writing.
• the siege would not be the city's end "would not be" → "was not"
• the area was still unstable, with a Khwarazmian bandit chief managing to assassinate You're using "with" to join two independent clauses (which also requires changing tense mid-sentence). Suggest splitting the sentence or using a semicolon (or even a dash).
• It would also regain → It regained. A date might be helpful here as well.

• All done—for the last, precise dates are unknown.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell thanks for some very pertinent comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One last query: why the definite article, as in "the Khan" rather than just "Khan"? And shouldn't it be consistent? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell to put it in a western perspective, "Genghis" is the regnal name and "Khan" is the title. Compare, say, Pope Francis—you wouldn't say "Pope went to Greece" but you might say "The Pope..." or "Pope Francis..." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.