Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuzuli (poet)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fuzuli (poet)

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

In April of this year, I rewrote this article about a significant 16th-century poet from a lesser-known region. It passed as a Good Article after being reviewed by UndercoverClassicist on May 29th.

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FA. My primary concerns are MOS and sourcing, particularly to ensure there is no close paraphrasing. I welcome all comments and feedback.

Thanks, — Golden call me maybe? 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist

[edit]

Saving a space here: I'll take a look in the next couple of days.

From what I can remember of the GA review, the main open question marks I noticed for FAC were to do with comprehensiveness and, to a lesser extent, sourcing: there are a lot of tertiary sources in the bibliography, which are generally disfavoured versus secondary sources (since they are, by nature, second-hand agglomerations of those sources). There may also be some more work to do on NPOV, and ensuring that value judgements about Fuzuli's work are properly contextualised within the scholarly discussion of it. We did a lot of work on close paraphrasing during the GA, and I think it would be best if someone else did a source review to pick up anything I missed and to ensure that our standards were in line with what's needed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The usual set of nit-picks below. My thoughts on tertiary sources stand; I've picked out a few NPOV matters in these comments, and still think a thorough source review by someone else would be a good idea. It's definitely a good article, so how significant the tertiary-source issue would be at FAC is perhaps debatable. Nice work so far and great job on the recent improvements. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by tertiary sources, you mean the encyclopedias, then unfortunately it would be very hard for me to replace them. The sources listed in encyclopedia articles do not provide page numbers, and some are not even available online. For those that are available, I would have to search through thousands of pages to find the relevant sentence referenced by the encyclopedia. For example, one source in Macit 2014 is over 700 pages long. Is there any way to make sure whether this would be a very serious issue at FAC? Because if not, I would really prefer not to do this. — Golden call me maybe? 11:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it'll be a deal-breaker as long as the tertiary sources are of good quality, but if you've found the same material in high-quality secondary sources, you could switch the citations. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • was a 16th-century poet who composed poetry: a bit of a tautology.
  • Fuzuli's work was widely known and admired throughout the Persianate Turkic cultural domain from the 16th to the 19th century, reaching as far as Central Asia and India.: grammatically a little ambiguous: did the Persianate Turkic domain reach as far as India, or Fuzuli's work?
  • Perhaps give a sense of where Tabriz is, as it's unlikely to be common knowledge?
  • Would anything be lost by replacing amatory poem with the more common and legible love poem?
  • a Middle Eastern tragic love story: better and clearer as a Middle-Eastern story of tragic love ("tragic" can mean "artistically rubbish").
  • MOS:CITELEAD makes an exception for direct quotes: at least cite "intense expression of feelings", and I'd usually gloss with something like "has been characterised by..." to make clear that we're using this as a third-party assessment, not simply because we couldn't think of a good way to phrase it.
  • his use of mystic metaphors and symbols, showing influences from Persian poets like Nizami, Jami, and Hafez, as well as Azerbaijani poets like Habibi and Nasimi.: could clarify; it's a little ambiguous as to whether these influences affect his poetry as a whole, or specifically its mystic (mystical?) elements.
  • helping it to attain a higher level of refinement: I'm not sure this is strictly a verifiable statement (how do you measure a language's refinement?) Couching it as someone's assessment would solve this problem.
  • His work has been characterised as: I think MOS:LEADCITE would like a citation here, as we're implicitly saying that someone has characterised it as such.
  • WL Shia and Sunni in lead?
  • In his writings, he wrote: tautological (either cut down or be more specific on writings).
  • Fuzuli lived in Iraq under the Aq Qoyunlu dynasty, which had ruled the region since 1470 until 1508: punctuation is a bit wonky here and has led to ambiguity. I think 1508 marks the end of Aq Qoyunlu rule rather than F's time in Iraq, so which ruled the region between 1470 and 1508 is clearer. The Aq Qoyunlu are called a confederation in our article, which is quite a different thing to a dynasty: is this the right word?
    • Thanks for the suggestion! I tried to fix that sentence before because someone else mentioned it too, but it didn't really work out. I don't know enough about the Aq Qoyunlu's government to say for sure, so I just changed dynasty to confederation in the sentence. — Golden call me maybe?
  • It's best if non-English text (such as Şikayetname, and arguably qasida) is placed into lang templates so that screen readers can properly render it. Is qasidas the local-language plural of qasida or an Anglicised hybrid?
    • Placed Şikayetname into a lang template. But I'm unsure about how to handle qasida (and other Arabic and Persian words/titles). It's from Arabic, but it's Latinised, so I don't know if using lang template would be appropriate. What do you think? Also, qasidas is an Anglicised hybrid (same with ghazals and rubaʿis).
      • There is the {{transl|ar}} template for transliterations, which might be appropriate? On qasidas etc: what's the Arabic plural and why don't we use that? This issue came up with a quite obscure Greek word in a recent FAC, and the outcome was to use the Greek plural. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @UndercoverClassicist: I consulted with a friend who is fluent in Persian and Arabic, and we concluded that using the original language's plural version may not be best solution in this context. In both Persian and Arabic, plurals are often formed as broken plurals, which may be unfamiliar to readers who do not know these languages. For example, the plural of divan in Arabic is dawawin, which may not be immediately recognizable to non-Arabic speakers. According to Wiktionary, Anglicised hybrids are acceptable plurals for these words (see wikt:qasida). Therefore, unless you anticipate issues at FAC, I think I'll stick to using Anglicised hybrids. — Golden call me maybe?
  • I'd deitalicise Complaint in the lit. tag and use double quotes, per MOS:MINORWORKS.
  • He wrote that he never found... was never realised: had never... had never been..., I think.
  • argues that Karbala is the most likely place of death: neater as of his death or, less preferably, his most likely...
  • the nickname of "poet of love" by scholars: delete of, and consider the nickname poet of love per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
  • Karahan is introduced twice, in a footnote and the body text, but I'm not sure that's a problem: he needs to be introduced on first body text mention, and the footnote comes first, so will be first mention overall for many readers.
    • I wasn't sure if footnotes counted as body text. Are you suggesting I remove the introduction outside the footnote? — Golden call me maybe?
      • We generally treat footnotes and references as their own universe: for instance, we might link an author or publisher multiple times in the citations. The logic is that most readers won't read the footnotes in the strict order that they're included: they'll either read them all at the end of the article, or read them piecemeal as and when they think they're useful, or not read them at all. So for the purposes of whether someone's been introduced, linked etc, I'd ignore footnotes. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has also stated that Fuzuli's poems: disambiguate as Macit has also stated... (the last he was Fuzuli).
  • their graves transformed into türbes (tombs): this needs a bit more explanation, since the gloss tombs (use single quotes for glosses) is a straightforward synonym for graves in English.
    • Amended. How is it now? — Golden call me maybe?
      • I think we've gone the wrong way here: we need a more precise explanation of what türbes are; they're a specific sort of tomb. The word shouldn't go unglossed unless we expect most readers to already know it.
        • Amended again. I can't think of another way to describe them, given the many variations. The word literally means "tomb" in Turkish. — Golden call me maybe?
  • The Garden of the Blessed': Single quotes plus italics don't really work: I'd suggest deitalicising (like Dante's Inferno ('Hell')...
  • was written mostly in Azerbaijani to provide Turkic people with access to the Battle of Karbala narrative: I'd cut this: the following sentence explains that this is the literary conceit of the work, and it's a mistake to straightforwardly take that as the poet's motivation.
  • I picked up an endash in 15th–century: compound modifiers like this use hyphens. Endashes are generally for date or page ranges.
  • I wouldn't wikilink Islam, per MOS:OVERLINK.
  • It's probably worth explaining panegyric, as we've done the same for other poetic genres (I appreciate this one's probably better known).
  • As we've kept Hadith untranslated in the text, I'd do the same in the translation of Ḥadīth-i arbaʿīn tercemesi (since it doesn't, in practice, mean tradition).
  • 134-couplet long should be 134-couplet-long.
  • The latter piece conveys the poet's philosophy on life as a whole: can we expand at all on what that was?
    • The source for that did not provide any information beyond that one sentence. I've replaced that sentence with content from a new source. — Golden call me maybe?
  • Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad and the first Shia Imam.: rephrase so it doesn't sound like Muhammad and the first Shia Imam were a couple.
  • Fuzuli is also regarded as one of the greatest poets in the Turkic literary world: a little flowery: one of the greatest Turkic poets?
  • Fuzuli was succeeded by his son: what does was succeeded by mean in this context?
    • Amended the text. I'm having trouble finding a good place to put that sentence. Since Fazli's exact birth date is unknown, it doesn't fit well in the Biography section, and it also doesn't seem right in the Legacy section. Do you have any suggestions? — Golden call me maybe?
      • I think it's good where it is: the Legacy section looks forward after Fuzuli's death, and his son's career mostly fits there (I think?). Otherwise, if the two largely overlapped, I'd stick it in the Biography section. The "normal" way to do this is a "personal life" section, but I don't think we've got the material for that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fazli means "belonging to munificence or abundance": can it also mean belonging to Fuzuli? If so, good to explain; if not, we might remind the reader here of the literal meaning of Fuzuli's name.
  • Fazli is believed to have received his poetic education from his father: suggest from Fuzuli to avoid repetition.
  • with modern scholar Sakina Berengian emphasising his greatness by referring to him: I'd cut emphasising his greatness; better to show, not to tell, and it's borderline for NPOV.
  • due to his flawless use of language in his poems: again, too much of a value judgement to put straightforwardly in Wikipedia's voice. We can't verify whether someone's writing is flawless (what does that empirically mean?)
    • It was meant in a literal sense, as in without any grammatical errors. Removing "flawless" renders the first part of the sentence meaningless. Any suggestions? — Golden call me maybe?
      • I'm not sure I buy that: is Karahan's standard for someone being a "brilliant linguist" really as low as that someone doesn't make grammatical mistakes in languages they know well? If that's really what they're arguing, then I'd make it more explicit: "flawless" here certainly sounds like a value judgement that his use of language is somehow particularly excellent or praiseworthy. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right. Upon rereading, it appears that Karahan called Fuzuli a "brilliant linguist" because he could write in Arabic and Persian, languages not native to him, without any errors in language or technique. I've amended the text to reflect this. — Golden call me maybe?
  • His musical knowledge, combined with the harmonious and expressive nature of his poems, make them suitable for composing music: should be makes, but this sentence doesn't quite check out: his musical knowledge, separate from what's in the poems themselves, is neither here or there. Suggest flipping to The harmonious and expressive nature of Fuzuli's poems, informed by his extensive musical knowledge, makes them suitable....
  • by both members of high society and performers outside major cultural hubs: slightly odd phrasing: and nobody else (including the poor audiences of these performers?).
  • outside major cultural hubs, where classical Turkish music merges with folk music.: a bit ambiguous as to whether this happens in or outside the cultural hubs. Do we mean major cities?
  • There are two usual approaches to alphabetising names like Şahin, and it usually depends on which language you're writing in: either ignore the diacritic altogether (so place it between Péri and Skilliter) or place it after all the non-diacriticked spellings (so before Taner). Either's fine here, I should think, though we've already done the second for Güngor, so good to be consistent.

@UndercoverClassicist: Thank you again for the review! I've replied to your points above and need your help with some of them. — Golden call me maybe? 21:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Per your suggestion, I have significantly reduced the number of citations to tertiary sources (and further expanded the article; Diff). The total number of such citations, excluding those for direct quotes or opinions, is now 53, comprising approximately 40% of all citations, compared to the previous ~70%. I would also appreciate it if you could respond to some of the questions I posed in response to your earlier points. Thank you again for your suggestions. — Golden call me maybe? 22:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this: I'll try and get to it in the next couple of days. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment by Ss

[edit]

The WP:LEAD section is a little short for an FA -- does it give an overview of all the key facts about this person and their work? Many of the citations do not have page numbers. You need to add the page numbers within these sources where you found the facts discussed in the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, @Ssilvers: I have expanded the lead and would appreciate your thoughts on it. Regarding page numbers, only online sources do not have them. Although these sources exist in book form, I have used their online editions for this article. For example, see the Macit 2014 source, which is part of the 3rd edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam but is cited in its online form from Brill. Is it still necessary for me to find and add their page numbers? — Golden call me maybe? 20:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For most books (though the online sources are used), I think you should still give the page numbers, though not encyclopedias, if they are organized alphabetically by name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: So, I should provide page numbers for books but it's fine if I don't provide them for encyclopedias? Did I understand correctly? — Golden call me maybe? 21:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the encyclopedia is organized alphabetically by name. I have made some tweaks to the Lead. Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! — Golden call me maybe? 21:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've changed it to the actual quote. Feel free to adjust if I didn't understand you correctly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: The quote I provided above was only a reference for the part of the sentence about Azerbaijani literature. Other sources still state that Fuzuli was one of the greatest poets in the Turkic literary world. So, I have restored that part of the sentence to read: Described as the "foremost of all the Azeri [Azerbaijani] poets", Fuzuli is also regarded as one of the greatest poets in the Turkic literary world. Do you think I should separate the Burrill citation and place it after the comma, or would a citation in the middle of the sentence violate MOS? Additionally, would it be acceptable to say Described as the "foremost of all the Azeri [Azerbaijani] poets" without attributing it to Burrill within that sentence? If I were to do so, I would need to provide a description of Burrill as the first sentence of the section, but I am unsure if that would look good. — Golden call me maybe? 18:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Yes, I would put the specific ref after the quote. Do you need to say Burrill's name in the text? Sure, "Described by the [historian?] Kathleen Burrill as..." -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've made the changes. — Golden call me maybe? 18:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship

[edit]

These will come in no particular order.

  • Good to see the lead has been expanded; that was one of the first concerns when I looked at the article earlier this afternoon.
  • I notice numerous one-paragraph subsections in the Poetry section. Consider merging some of them together to avoid MOS:OVERSECTION.
  • On that note, the "Works" subsection in that section seems essentially superfluous. You could remove it and upgrade its subsections to level-3.
  • I've reduced the number of subsections from seven to four. Let me know if I should reduce it even more. — Golden call me maybe?
  • In the legacy section:
  • "Fuzuli is regarded as one of the greatest and most famous poets in Turkic literary world ... Fuzuli is recognised as the preeminent poet among all Azerbaijani poets and the leading figure in Azerbaijani literature." could be simplified greatly. For example: "The preeminent figure in Azerbaijani literature, Fuzuli is regarded as one of the greatest poets in the Turkic literary world."
  • "The modern scholar Sakina Berengian refers to Fuzuli as the "Ferdowsi and Hafez of Azeri [Azerbaijani] literature", comparing him to two poets regarded as among the greatest in Persian literature. She states that it was through Fuzuli's work that the Azerbaijani language reached maturity and Azerbaijani classical poetry achieved its highest level of refinement." could also be simplified, like "The modern scholar Sakina Berengian emphasises Fuzuli's greatness by referring to him as the "Ferdowsi and Hafez of Azeri [Azerbaijani] literature", stating that Azerbaijani poetry and language reached new heights in his writings."
  • The entire section in general is less put-together than previous sections. Scholars are cited individually, one at a time, and there is little effort to combine different scholarly viewpoints in single sentences; instead, each view receives a separate sentence and citation.
  • It is also somewhat unfocused/vague—I don't know why, for example, a note on Fuzuli's son's name comes after a reflection on his love themes. What does "with his legacy characterised as inclusive" mean?
  • I have restructured the section to address your concerns and moved two sentences to the Poetry section. Let me know what you think. — Golden call me maybe?
  • Second paragraph: "was famous not only in the Ottoman Empire, Iran, and Central Asia, but also in the Indian subcontinent [four places] ... three unique Fuzuli textual traditions emerged: Ottoman, Central Asian, and Iranian." Any reason for the seeming discrepancy?
  • This sentence was mentioned in the GA review as well, but unfortunately, the author does not provide any additional information beyond what is already in the article. I was unable to find any information about these traditions from other sources, so I have removed the sentence. — Golden call me maybe?
  • Note g: "Until the late twentieth century, Fuzuli's birth date was incorrectly considered to be 1495"; the image caption states "Azerbaijani stamp commemorating the 500th anniversary of Fuzuli's birth, 1994". How late in the 20th century are we talking, and is it possible to provide a year (late 20th-century to me means late 1980s or 90s)?
  • Unfortunately, I cannot provide an exact year. The “late twentieth century” part comes from the fact that a 1996 source by Karahan states, The date of 900 (1495), which was accepted until recently, [...] are not based on any serious document. So we have a source from 1996 saying that until recently, 1495 was the accepted date. We can probably infer from this that the date was accepted until the mid-90s. However, I am not sure whether this kind of inference would be accepted in a FA. Let me know your thoughts. — Golden call me maybe?
  • "Fuzuli had an interest in poetry since his childhood, getting his first poetic inspiration from the late 15th-century poet Habibi." was the inspiration direct (in person) or indirect (through writings)?
  • The article includes seven instances of "according to".

Various and indiscriminate these comments were, but I hope they help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Thank you for your review! I have addressed all of your points and would appreciate your thoughts on some of them. — Golden call me maybe? 23:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

You were kind enough to invite my comments, and here they are, or at least the first batch of them.

  • General: If I were you I'd go through the article looking for every instance of Fuzuli's name and replacing it with "he", "him" or "his" wherever you can. At the moment his name is mentioned far too often, e.g. "Fuzuli declared that he had abandoned all hope ... Fuzuli was working as a candle-lighter ... Fuzuli wrote ... Fuzuli never managed to travel ... Fuzuli died from the plague..."
  • I've revised the text to reduce the number of mentions of "Fuzuli" from 96 to 61. In most cases, I've replaced it with pronouns such as he/his/him, but in some instances where that wasn't an option, I've used "the poet" instead. — Golden call me maybe?
  • "Fuzuli lived in Iraq under the Aq Qoyunlu dynasty (having ruled the region since 1470)" – grammatically this says that Fuzuli ruled the region. You need to change "having" to "which had" or some such.
  • "However, after Mawsillu was murdered" – you don't need this "However" or either of the other two Howevers in the article. The one in the notes is OK, I think.
  • Removed the two "However"s.
  • "Fuzuli died from the plague...and was subsequently buried" – "subsequently" seems a bit superfluous: it was hardly going to be previously.
  • "Fuzuli's work is distinguished by "the way in which he integrates the mystic...." – I'd prefer to see a substantial quotation like this attributed inline – "according to so-and-so...."
  • Do you mean the following sentence? It is already attributed to the Encyclopædia Iranica though: The Encyclopædia Iranica distinguishes his work by "the way in which he integrates the mystic and the erotic, in the combination of the conventionality of his topics with the sincerity of his style, and in his intense expression of feelings of passionate love, of pity for the unfortunate, and of patience in the face of adversity". — Golden call me maybe?
  • "totalitarianism, feudal lords, and establishment religion" – to me "totalitarianism" is such a 20th/21st century concept as to seem jarring here. Something like "despotism" or "autocracy" perhaps?
  • "due to his skillful use ..." – two points here. First if as it appears the prose is in BrE the spelling of the adjective is "skilful" (don't ask me why!) and secondly "due to" as used here is questionable in formal BrE: in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
  • Changed to "skilful" and "because of". Additionally, I added attribution to the sentence as "skilful" should probably not be stated in Wikivoice. — Golden call me maybe?

That's all for now. More shortly. Hope these points so far are helpful. Tim riley talk 21:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thank you for your review! I've addressed your points above. — Golden call me maybe? 13:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. I'll be back with a further batch of comments shortly. Tim riley talk 13:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding comments from Tim
  • "Fuzuli also authored several works in Persian" – rather pompous verb: why not a plain "wrote"?
  • "losing and regaining his body's health physically due to its struggle with a disease and later psychologically due to its struggle with love" (and a further couple of "due to"s later on) – could do with being tweaked, as above.
  • "with modern scholar Sakina Berengian" – crunching false title – could do with a definite article.
  • "His musical knowledge, combined with the harmonious and expressive nature of his poems, make them suitable for composing music" – verb should be singular in this construction: A and B are, but A combined with B is. "Composing music" looks a bit odd here: do you mean suitable for setting to music?

Those are my few suggestions. I hope to see the piece at FAC in due course. Tim riley talk 16:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim riley. Your comments have been very helpful. — Golden call me maybe? 21:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

[edit]
  • The section on name is very short, and I wonder if it is necessary at all; can it just be incorporated into the biography section?
  • I had considered this as well and have now merged the Name section into the Biography section. — Golden call me maybe?
  • "Fuzuli of Baghdad, suggesting he was born or raised in Baghdad or its surroundings": can this be rewritten to avoid the repetition of Baghdad?
  • "Fuzuli lived in Iraq under the Aq Qoyunlu dynasty (which had ruled the region since 1470) until 1508, when Shah Ismail I of the Iranian Safavid dynasty took over". This reads strangely to me: on first looking at it I thought it meant that when the Savafid's conquered Iraq, Fuzuli left, but I'm not sure that's the intention?
  • Honestly, I'm not sure how to rephrase the sentence to clarify that "until" refers to the end of Aq Qoyunlu rule, not the end of Fuzuli's life in Iraq. Fuzuli lived his entire life in Iraq and did not leave after the Safavid takeover. I made a minor change that I think addresses the issue somewhat. Let me know what you think. — Golden call me maybe?
  • "This epic poem, written in the lyric form in 1535" probably this is the classicist in me, but I do not understand this at all: epic and lyric are in my world totally different forms of poetry
  • Good catch! I think I made a mistake as none of the cited sources mention "epic poem". I have switched it to "lyric poem". — Golden call me maybe?
  • "he completed the work in a short amount of time": this is rather vague - what does "a short amount of time" mean here?
  • It's not clarified in the source. Here's the full quote (Google Translated from Turkish): "[...] While describing the reason for the writing of his work, Fuzûlî says that when some poets from Istanbul asked him to write a story of Leyla and Majnun, he accepted it as a test and wrote and finished his work in a short time.". — Golden call me maybe?
  • "particularly in the way the subject was handled": I don't understand what this phrase is trying to convey
  • "Through his interpretation, the story of Layla and Majnun became widely known and is considered one of the greatest works of Turkic literature": do you mean that the story in general became known as one of the greatest works of Turkic literature here? Or do you intend to say that Fuzuli's version became known as one of the greatest works of Turkic literature? If the latter, you need to say something like "... and Fuzuli's poem is considered ..."
  • "is the most popular among other contemporary works on the Karbala events": this reads strangely to me and I'm not sure I fully understand.
  • Obviously Fuzuli's legacy as an Azeri poet is important in the middle east, but if possible it would be nice to say something about any anglophone reception as this is an English encyclopedia. E.g. has he been translated into English? When first/have there been any important translations?
  • Unfortunately, there is not much information available about the anglophone reception of Fuzuli's works in the sources. This is probably because Fuzuli has not been as well-researched in the West, with most research about him being in Turkish. However, I found some information about translations and added the following two sentences to the Legacy section: Some of Fuzuli's works have been translated into English. Leyli and Majnun was translated by the writer-translator Sofi Huri in 1970 in London, and Sohbetü’l-esmâr was traslated by the Turkologist Gunnar Jarring in 1936 in Lund under the title The Contest of the Fruits. — Golden call me maybe?

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your review, Caeciliusinhorto! I've addressed your points above. — Golden call me maybe? 23:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Fuzuli_(poet)/archive1&oldid=1168250175"