# Talk:Mohammad Khan Tokhmaq Ustajlu

Hi LouisAragon. This could do with an infobox. Would you like me to do it, or would you prefer to? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

- @Gog the Mild: Hey! Sure, feel free - go ahead! - LouisAragon (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I know nothing about Safavid naming conventions, but is it correct to refer to him as Tokhmaq Khan rather than Ustajlu?

- "Ustajlu" is the name of the tribe he belonged to. Other than in the title and in the first sentence, its not really necessary to add "Ustajlu" throughout the rest of the article. I mean you can do it, but its kinda unnecessary. What I often do myself is kinda alternating between both. So for example, in some sentences "Tokhmaq Khan", whereas "Tokhmaq Khan Ustajlu" in others. But its up to you. I think it looks perfectly fine right now. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there a reason for "Scutari (Constantinople)" rather than just Constantinople? I nearly changed it but thought it best to check. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

- I specifically added Scutari to the article because thats what Matthee (2014) uses as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
What do you think about adding [one of these] as an image? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

- I just added a pic of Tahmasp I. Should do the trick until we get a pic of Çıldır/Battle of Çıldır. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mohammad Khan Tokhmaq Ustajlu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Al Ameer son (talk · contribs) 19:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article shortly. I gave it a read-through earlier and it looks good from the outset. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead states he was from the Turkmen Ustajlu tribe, this should be mentioned in the body of the article as well, along with any relevant context about his early life, if available.
Done. Unfortunately, this is all information I could find about him.
It should be mentioned in the lead that the battle of Cildir ended in his army’s rout and his governornorsnip ended after the Ottomans took over his city.
Done.
(Optional) For the last sentence, perhaps reword slightly it as: "... brought to an end due to encroachments by the Ottomans, who controlled the province until 1604".
For context, make it known in the article where Erivan is generally located. It’s stated that an alternative name for the province is Chokhur-e Sa'd; why not mention Yerevan as well? The article is pretty concise so we can afford an entire sentence on this right after the first sentence in the “Embassy to the Ottomans” section.
Good suggestion. I added a sentence to the body of the article, on the location you proposed. Please let me know what you think.
Add a relevant picture of Erivan.
Done.
Quotations should be generally attributed to their author or rewritten in your own words, so  "richly", "magnificent piece of art", "affecting the welfare of the realm as a whole" and "only counting the ones that were visible to them" need attribution.
Done.
Is the name(s) of his Ottoman successor available?
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find anything.
@LouisAragon: After a few read-throughs, I’ve been hard-pressed to find issues with the article’s prose or comprehensiveness. Though it is short and I’m not too familiar with Safavid history, the article certainly appears to fully cover the interesting career of this Safavid official. It would be good to have known what happened to him after 1583 and how and when he died, but after working on several articles about contemporary Ottoman officials with similar multi-faceted careers (i.e. governors/generals/diplomats), I know it’s very difficult sometimes to find this information. Please address the above points whenever you can and I’ll do a spot-check when I’m in front of my computer. Otherwise, I’ll see if there’s anything else that needs to be addressed. Very good work with this article. —Al Ameer (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: I believe I just dealt with all points. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I should adjust something (especially in relation to point #3 for example).
In relation to the general lack of information; yeah, unfortunately, I know very well what you mean. Many of such officials belonging to West Asian/Middle Eastern empires and entities, are often not covered in detail at all in English literature. Though I believe it will change in the future, as general interest in the history of West Asia/Middle East has been booming in the past 15-20 years, we're obviously not there yet. I mean take a look at the Roman-Byzantine topic area for example, where basically every individual is covered through all kinds of modern dictionary/encyclopaedia-like sources. That's what I'd like to see for these empires/entities as well. But I guess I can't complain too much; the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Islamica and Encyclopaedia Iranica have been absolutely great so far. It could've been worse. ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: Thanks for making those adjustments. I left one wording suggestion about the last sentence of the lead. Other than that, congratulations on writing a fine article. As for expanding coverage of this general topic area, that's our mutual mission here. Luckily, with editors like you around, this is being done on a daily basis, so please keep up the great work! I look forward to future collaboration. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Al Ameer son: Changed it, good suggestion IMO.
And I would like to thank you for your time and valuable remarks, and yeah, I'm definitely looking forward to future collaboration as well. Good times are comin'. ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)