Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Orhan Gazi, the first statesman
This article is an unpublished pre-print undergoing public peer review organised by the WikiJournal of Humanities.
You can follow its progress through the peer review process at this tracking page.First submitted:
Article text
QID: Q111719531
Suggested (provisional) preprint citation format:
Bassem Fleifel. "Orhan Gazi, the first statesman". WikiJournal Preprints. Wikidata Q111719531.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Reviewers: (comments)
Rama Aziz Draz
Imad Jamil Ghamloush
Article information
This is the pre-publication public peer review for the article Orhan Gazi, the first statesman
First peer review[edit source]
reviewer-annotated pdf
Review by Rama Aziz Draz 
, Department of History, Faculty of Human Science, Beirut Arab University
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
Dr. Bassem Fleifel Wrote an Academic Article Entitled “Orhan Gazi, the first statesman”, which handled the aforementioned sultan’s life, prior to his accession to the throne and after it, including the formation of the Janissary corps and Orhan’s conquests in Anatolia and Europe, his administrative and Jurisdictional accomplishments, and his great role in setting the Ottoman Empire’s foundations. Dr. Bassem also talked about the Sultan’s private life and family affairs. In General, this was a good research, in which the researcher followed the authentic standards used in writing academic articles. There was also a good diversity of sources and references that the researcher used, whether Arabic, Western or Turkish. In terms of methodology, there was an organized, easy, simple, smooth and orderly and logical sequence of events. The title was formulated to match the content, as it reflected the topic of the article and was expressive and comprehensive. The sources associated with the study are well used. The ideas were clear, style was smooth, as well as the desired goal. The Author adhered to objectivity, impartiality, and historical and academic honesty. The writing style and language were very appropriate. The author used expressions and terminology appropriate to the topic. Dr. Fleifel was succeful in choosing this topic, which will hopefully lead to new and various future studies. Dr. Fleifel adhered to ethical standards in his research, and also, as previously mentioned, to academic honesty and credibility in presenting ideas and events without any bias or discrimination.
Many thanks to Dr Draz for her review and encouragement--باسم (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Second peer review[edit source]
reviewer-annotated pdf
Review by Imad Jamil Ghamloush , Department of History, Faculty of Arts and Humanities,Lebanese University,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
The researcher presented a comprehensible and clear explanation of the research’s goal, background, and importance. His results and conclusions were also clear. As for the presentation, it was sequential and logical. He used a clear and simple language, and was able to explain his ideas well, by avoiding some of the complicated terms. The researcher showed self-confidence through his writing, and his treatment of the topic was very good overall, which makes this article a valuable addition in its academic field. The researcher used a wide range of different sources and references that enriched this study. Overall, this research is considered to be very good.
Many thanks to Dr Ghamloush for his review and encouragement--باسم (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)