Talk:Nizar ibn al-Mustansir/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 13:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is mostly good, I just have a couple small suggestions in the comments.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Well referenced, I spot checked using EI2 and Daftary on Google Books, everything checks out.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Yes, maintains neutrality by attributing potentially contentious material instead of saying it in Wikipedia's voice.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No issues, beyond the coin I can't think of any other images you'd need.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Another interesting article, I'm sure it will pass but I'll put it ~~on hold~~ because I had a few concerns with the prose, see the comments below. Pass. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Neutrality: In "Disputed succession", you write Modern scholars commonly consider that as the eldest son, Nizar was indeed the designated (naṣṣ) or at least presumed successor of his father. I notice that Nizari Isma'ilism puts it more strongly, saying From early in his reign, the Fatimid Caliph-Imam Al-Mustansir Billah had publicly named his elder son Nizar as his heir. Do you think the sources back up that claim? Could we get rid of the qualifier and just say As the eldest son, Nizar was the designated or at least presumed successor? I know the Nizari page is pretty biased, I only bring it up because Daftary on page 241 seems to state as a fact that Nizar was the designated successor.
Life: After the sentence about al-Jamali restoring order, I think it would help to introduce al-Afdal and mention that he was al-Jamali's son, something like Following al-Jamali's death in 1094, his son al-Afdal became vizier. I know this info is already in the disputed secession section, but I think it should come before al-Afdal and Nizar were deeply hostile to one another.
Image: What do you think about using the coin image in the infobox?
Disputed succession: The sentence starting with Being totally dependent on al-Afdal for his accession seems a little clunky to me, I'd split into two sentences, something like Al-Musta'li, who had furthermore just married al-Afdal's sister, was completely dependent on al-Afdal for his accession. This made him a compliant figurehead who was unlikely to threaten al-Afdal's as yet fragile hold on power by attempting to appoint another to the vizeirate.
Nizari schism: In the sentence the latter swiftly recognized Nizar's rights to the imamate, I think the latter refers to Persia but it's not clear from the text, it could also mean Iraq or "the Isma'ili communities in the wider Middle East". I would change the latter to something like Isma'ilis in Persia.
Descendants and succession: It is attested that Nizar did indeed have sons: I would rephrase this to avoid the passive voice, as is it begs the question of who attested this. Maybe something like Contemporary sources attest that Nizar had sons. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cerebellum, thanks for the thorough review and the suggestions. I will deal with them soon, for now I just want to comment on the first part: the more generalist sources like Daftary or Brett simply call Nizar as the designated successor, and my first rewrite of the article reflected this. However, once I read through Halm and Walker, I realised that the situation is not so clear-cut. Halm explicitly says that "A designation of Nizar by his father does not appear to have taken place", and the account in the 'Disputed succession' section, based on Walker, illustrates just how confused the situation appears to have been in reality (at least according to our sources). The Isma'ili articles are generally problematic, having been written mostly (as far as I can tell) by believers, but in the case of the Nizari article it does indeed reflect the source. It is just that Daftary is, for reasons unknown, less cautious than he should be in making the assertion of Nizar's designation. Constantine ✍ 18:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thanks for the reply! Makes sense. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cerebellum, I think I've dealt with the points you raised above (I mostly adopted your suggestions), and I also made some other tweaks and additions, now that I had a look at it with a fresh eye. On the coin, it is not a coin of Nizar himself (there exists a single specimen of his Alexandria coinage, AFAIK, and I can't find a picture of it other than the one in Daftary), so it is not suitable for the infobox. Please have another look, and if there is anything more, let me know. Constantine ✍ 22:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I clearly didn't read the caption! Everything looks good, thanks for the quick response. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for taking the time. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]