Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ahmad Maymandi/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2017 [1].

Ahmad Maymandi[edit]

Nominator(s): HistoryofIran (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ahmad Maymandi, who served as the vizier of the Ghaznavid Empire two times, and was one of the leading officials of his age. This article is currently a Good Article, but I really want to make it FA - I believe the article is well-written, which is why it got GA in the first place. Of course, FA is something else compared to GA, but I guess we'll see what happens. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Syek88[edit]

I have read in detail the section of the article on the First Vizierate and Downfall. I have the following comments:

"The first vizier of Mahmud was a Persian named Abu'l-Hasan Isfaraini, who was chosen by Sebuktegin, although in reality, Mahmud preferred to have Maymandi as his vizier rather than Isfaraini." – This sentence directly contradicts the cited reference, which says: "Maḥmūd’s first vizier (384-401/994-1010) was Abu’l-ʿAbbās Fażl b. Aḥmad Esfarāyenī. According to ʿOtbī (in Jorfādeqānī’s version), Maḥmūd wanted Maymandī for the post but selected Esfarāyenī on Seboktegīn’s insistence. This account is not convincing, since Esfarāyenī remained in office for thirteen years following Seboktegīn’s death (d. 387/997), and Maymandī did not gain the post until 404/1013, three years after Esfarāyenī’s dismissal." In other words, the cited reference seems to be trashing the idea, quite convincingly, that Mahmud always wanted Maymandi in the post.
"Two years later [implying in 1013], Isfaraini fell from favor and Maymandi was finally appointed as the vizier of Mahmud." – The cited source, quoted above, says that Isfaraini lasted only until 1010 and that three years then elapsed until Maymandi replaced him. In other words, the article seems to get Maymandi’s year of appointment correct, but not the year of Isfaraini’s downfall. They didn't coincide in 1013.
"Maymandi quickly began centralizing the Empire, and restored Arabic as the administrative language of the Empire" – the verb "restored" implies success. The subsequent sentence, sourced to Frye, shows that there was no such success. Frye himself uses the word "attempt", which might be good to adopt.
Footnote 12 is cited to "Nashat and Guity" but it should be "Nashat and Beck". Guity seems to be Nashat’s first name. But the true author to credit is Julie Scott Meisami, who wrote the relevant chapter of Nashat and Guity’s book and which footnote 12 cites.
"According to Ghaznavid sources, the reason for Mahmud's invasion of the region was to avenge the murder of his brother-in-law Ma'mun II, but according to modern sources he used the latter's death as an excuse to expand Ghaznavid rule over the Oxus River." This sentence seems to involve reading a lot into the source cited. First, it is not clear what the "modern sources" (plural) are. Bosworth himself says that Mahmud’s invasion was "an act of sheer aggrandizement" and that Ma’mun’s murder was "casus belli". But is he saying that the murder was a mere “excuse” for grander territorial ambitions? Even if he were saying that, which is arguable, there is no other source cited. So the articles invocation of "modern sources", which implies multiple scholars if not outright scholarly consensus, is not supported.
"During the early 1020s, Maymandi urged Mahmud to invade Jibal, which was then under the control of the young Buyid ruler Majd al-Dawla. However, the real ruler of the region was Majd al-Dawla's mother Sayyida Shirin, which was already known by the neighbors of the Buyids, including the Ghaznavids. Mahmud, however, did not agree with him, and did not feel his empire threatened because of a woman ruling in the region." – These three sentences do not read well together. The two “howevers” are clunky. Perhaps the "and" in the third sentence should be "because he".
"In 1024, because Maymandi had gained a great amount of wealth during his career as a vizier, Mahmud removed him from his office, confiscated his property, and had him imprisoned at Kalinjar in India." – Footnote 15 supports the second half of this sentence but not the first. The reference stops at saying Maymandi was "disgraced and dismissed" and imprisoned but says nothing of him being wealthy or of that being the reason for his dismissal and imprisonment. It might be better to cite Yusofi (fn 6) for this: he gives a much firmer and more detailed account of the circumstances leading to Maymandi’s dismissal that supports everything the sentence says.

I'm afraid I'm inclined to oppose this nomination for now. Based on the sample of one section that I have performed, I think the article needs a thorough check for accurate relaying of information in sources. I also think that is best done outside this nomination process. It is only once that is done that reviewers could turn to issues like prose.

Having said that, I'd be very grateful to be corrected on any errors or misconceptions in my comments. Syek88 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syek88: Thank you very much for your feedback, I will try to fix the problems in the following days. What do you suggest I should do btw? Should I get it peer reviewed? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest going through the article line-by-line against the sources with a sceptical eye. Peer review probably isn't the best place for that because only you will have full access to all of the sources plus the background knowledge. I should say as well - don't necessarily think of these as "problems": it has passed GA and is a quality article that I imagine would have been very challenging to source and write. Syek88 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the map
File:Mahmud_in_robe_from_the_caliph.jpg needs a US PD tag
File:Mas'udIGhaznavidCoin.jpg should include an explicit copyright tag for the coin itself
File:Ferdosi_Square.JPG: what is the copyright of the statue in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Given Syek's oppose, I think this might be best worked on away from FAC. I would recommend working through the points and pinging Syek when you are finished, and then nominating after at least the mandatory two week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.