Talk:Al-Mu'tasim/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to give this one a review. Be warned, as there is always the potential that I might ask a daft question as my limited knowledge of the Abbasids are from playing Crusader Kings 2! But at least I've heard of them. :) I can tell straight away that the sourcing is excellent. I'm going to give it a read through now and leave queries on here as I go. Miyagawa (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Early life
- My only criticism of this section is the use of "al-Mu'tasim" at the start of the third paragraph - it's certainly worth while including the background information but it'd be better to stick to calling him "Abu Ishaq" through this section for consistency (except where you refer to him after he becomes Caliph).
- Hmmm, usually, the Caliph is mentioned by his regnal name in literature, except when the point is excplicitly about his role during earlier reigns (and not always even then). In this case, dealing with a question debated among modern scholars (and it is indeed one of the major questions about him and his reign), it seems to me more suitable to refer to "al-Mu'tasim's Turks", since this is how they are called in relevant literature. I could bypass this by rephrasing it, but I'd prefer to keep it the way it is. Constantine ✍ 15:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, best to keep it then. Miyagawa (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm, usually, the Caliph is mentioned by his regnal name in literature, except when the point is excplicitly about his role during earlier reigns (and not always even then). In this case, dealing with a question debated among modern scholars (and it is indeed one of the major questions about him and his reign), it seems to me more suitable to refer to "al-Mu'tasim's Turks", since this is how they are called in relevant literature. I could bypass this by rephrasing it, but I'd prefer to keep it the way it is. Constantine ✍ 15:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- My only criticism of this section is the use of "al-Mu'tasim" at the start of the third paragraph - it's certainly worth while including the background information but it'd be better to stick to calling him "Abu Ishaq" through this section for consistency (except where you refer to him after he becomes Caliph).
- Caliphate
- It'd be better to reaffirm that Abbas is al-Ma'mun's son when you mention him in the first sentence rather than the fourth of the first paragraph.
- Good point, done. Constantine ✍ 15:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- It'd be better to reaffirm that Abbas is al-Ma'mun's son when you mention him in the first sentence rather than the fourth of the first paragraph.
- New elites and administration
- The "great" in "great Mamluk dynasties" might fall foul of WP:WEASEL if taken to mean mighty rather than something relating to size. I don't think it's needed as simply "Mamluk dynasties that ruled Egypt and Syria in the late Middle Ages" without the "great" would still indicate which dynasties you're talking about.
- A little subjectivity leaking in there indeed, done. Constantine ✍ 15:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- In the sixth paragraph, you don't need to link Iraq. I'd keep the link to Sawad though.
- The "great" in "great Mamluk dynasties" might fall foul of WP:WEASEL if taken to mean mighty rather than something relating to size. I don't think it's needed as simply "Mamluk dynasties that ruled Egypt and Syria in the late Middle Ages" without the "great" would still indicate which dynasties you're talking about.
- Taking a break there, will continue it later. Miyagawa (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi and thanks for taking the time to review this! I've answered/dealt with the questions you have raised so far. Please don't hesitate to ask or remark on anything, even if it is "daft", for the average reader probably knows even less. Aside from purely GA criteria, I am very interested in readability/understandability for the average, uninitiated reader. If you think that a section is lacking context, or conversely, is too detailed, please let me know. I am for instance worried whether the Amorium campaign section is not overly large in proportion to the rest of the article, but in view of its importance for his reign (it was the only major foreign campaign, and the only one he led in person) and his public image (both among contemporaries and today), it had to be extensive. I need other opinions though on whether it affects the article's balance. In general, I welcome any and all questions :) Constantine ✍ 15:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Mu'tazilism and the miḥna
- Final sentence - I'd drop the "great" as mentioned above.
- Replaced with "distinguished", as al-Kindi is generally acknowledged to have been a major figure in Islamic science. Constantine ✍ 19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Final sentence - I'd drop the "great" as mentioned above.
- And... I think that's it. I thought the coverage of the Amorium campaign was fine and didn't give any unnecessary detail. Once that last edit is done, I'll promote this to GA. Miyagawa (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Done, and again thanks. Did you feel it lacked in background material anywhere? Something I sould elaborate a bit more upon? Constantine ✍ 19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think it reads well to a person that doesn't otherwise know much about that history area/period. Certainly it's strong enough for GA. Miyagawa (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)