Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Köse Dağ/archive1

Battle of Köse Dağ

Battle of Köse Dağ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 10 January 2025, 18:00 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Köse Dağ/archive1

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The Battle of Köse Dağ was a decisive event for the Middle East, marking the end of real Seljuk power and another feather in the cap of the Mongol war machine. One of the great powers of the Mediterranean was overpowered on its own territory by an army half its size operating 4,500km away from its homeland. Quite an achievement, by any measure.

This article has passed a GA review from Premeditated Chaos and a MILHIST A-class review from which the above introduction was taken. If successful, it will be used in the WikiCup. All comments welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review from PMC

I'll have a look and see if I missed anything at the GAN, although I recall it being pretty tight to begin with. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) Since others are doing prose reviewing, and I did quite a bit of that already, I'll take care of a source review.

Sources used are all high-quality publications written by subject-matter experts and published by academic or otherwise reliable publishers. Although they're not integrated yet, I preemptively checked the sources recommended by Cplakidas, and they are (obviously) also high-quality academic research. I have done no new spot check here, but I did one at the GAN and found nothing concerning.

Nitpicks

• Ref 2, Dunnell needs a page number, 19–106 is too big of a range to just cite the whole thing
• Same with Latham-Sprinkle in ref 5
• I tweaked a few refs to correct p vs pp, and one to turn an em into an en dash for consistency
• "New York" should be "New York City", to reduce ambiguity
• Since other publishers are linked, suggest linking Facts on File
• Suggest also linking Encyclopædia Iranica

Aside from minor formatting complaints, I have no issues saying this passes the source review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, done the latter, but I don't know another way to adjust the size of an infobox image? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• • • You can either modify the template to accommodate upright scaling, or just do this. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Cplakidas

Reserving a spot here for this important article. Constantine ✍ 10:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Lede

• Is there a reason why Rum became a client kingdom while Georgia a vassal state? I am not sure what the difference is, if any (and whether we should have two different articles, but that is another story)
• Include the Georgians and Armenians in the infobox (a la 'various mercenaries' for the Sejuks?
• Use 'Seljuk' in the infobox per article text

Background

• gained control of Anatolia 'gained control of large parts of Anatolia' or 'gained control of central and eastern Anatolia' or similar, as the west and parts of the north was still Byzantine, the south Armenian, there were other Turkoman principalities, etc.

Prelude

• Christian Georgian and Armenian auxiliaries the Georgians are already covered, but were these Armenians from the Caucasus (I assume so) or from Cilicia?
• which the Christians distributed I assume the Christian auxiliary troops in Mongol service are meant here?

Battle

• Arab tribes of Iraq is this Iraq in the modern sense or Iraq (region)?
• possessed a solidarity 'cohesion' might be a better word here
• They were accompanied by Georgian and Armenian cavalry, including Hasan-Jalal I, the ruler of the Principality of Khachen is repeated verbatim

Aftermath

• Mongol dominance in Asia Minor stick to 'Anatolia' as already used before and after
• Is there a link (e.g. in the Turkish wiki) for the vizier Muhezzibeddin?

That's it for a quick first review. The article is fairly well written and easy to read, but quite short for such an important event. Will have a look in my own sources for a comprehensiveness check. Constantine ✍ 17:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, by and large most sources I consulted cover the same ground as the article, and repeat that details about the battle are few. However, I know of at least two sources that should be consulted for meeting 1c (with implications for 1b): First is Claude Cahen's Pre-Ottoman Turkey (1968) or its later version, The Formation of Turkey (2001), or better yet, the French original, published in 1988. This is a foundational work for the period and has a lot of information, especially about the aftermath of the battle and the imposition of Mongol control over Anatolia, which is the one part of the article I find being somewhat to summary-like. Second is the only dedicated study I could find, Der Niedergang der anatolischen Seldschuken: die Entscheidungsschlacht am Kösedag (JSTOR), which is in German. It largely repeats what is already in the article, but has more detail than I saw elsewhere, and hence some additional information (such as that Kaykhusraw's major military backer, Sa'd al-Din, had systematicaly driven away all other officials who might challenge him leading to a dearth of talent at the Seljuk court; or the pre-battle deliberations among the Seljuk army) that should be included. Constantine ✍ 20:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

As an example about what is IMO missing from the aftermath section: there is no discussion about the impact of the Mongol victory and the Pax Mongolica in the wider region, e.g. the treaties concluded by Nicaea and Cilicia with the Mongols, or the stabilization of frontiers in Anatolia as a result, which for example helped Nicaea with focusing on the reconquest of the Latin Empire, etc. Constantine ✍ 21:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the specialist view, Cplakidas! I'll get back to you when I've incorporated the material from Cahen and Matuz; will probably be on the weekend. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Lead: "with an army of 30,000 Mongol troops accompanied by Georgian and Armenian auxiliaries"; Article: "The core of the Mongol army was about 30,000 experienced and disciplined troops, ... accompanied by Georgian and Armenian cavalry": Infobox: "Around 30,000". The last does not correspond unless the total of Georgian and Armenian auxiliaries/cavalry was in the low hundreds. And if they were, why are they significant enough to be mentioned - at least in the lead?
  • I am not aware of any RS estimations of the size of the auxiliary forces, but without exception RS place heavy stress in their participation in the campaign and especially the battle, where they played a critical role. I cannot say "more than 30,000" in the infobox because that could imply there were 200,000, but neither can I provide an upper bound because that would be OR. I hope you can see the quandary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but no I can't. Why does '"more than 30,000' imply 200,000 any more or less than "30,000 Mongol troops accompanied by Georgian and Armenian auxiliaries"?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I am pausing while Constantine is reviewing to avoid any duplications. I'll be back once he is finished. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from MS

• I will like to take a look at this article. MSincccc (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)~

  The lead is fine as it is. I will leave comments for the rest of the article later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have read through the Prelude and Background sections. The prose is fine as it is and hence, I have nothing to suggest. MSincccc (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Battle

  • The core of the Mongol army comprised around 30,000 experienced and disciplined troops,... Using "comprised around" instead of "was about".
  • This force had ten years' experience fighting as a unit, and so possessed a solidarity which the Turkish forces lacked. Added missing "which" after "solidarity".

  Aftermath

  • After the battle, the Mongols captured a slew of cities in Anatolia, including Kayseri, Sivas, Erzincan, and Ankara, while Kaykhusraw was fleeing to Antalya. Why has "fleeing to" being used here and not "fled to"?

  AirshipJungleman29 This concludes my suggestions for the article's prose. The article proved to be an interesting read on the whole. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)