Talk:Battle of Badr/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vice regent (talk · contribs) 13:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Started review, currently reading the article.VR _talk 13:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

After one pass, the article looks like it meets every criteria - I have not yet evaluated the images. It is stable, mostly neutral, broad in coverage, verifiable, and reasonably well written.

My suggestions:

• Lead:
  • It is best to have inline citations in the lead, even though MOS:LEADCITE doesn't require it.
  • The lead should omit unnecessary details ("who was later given the kunyah "Abu Jahl" by Muhammad").
  • The lead gives too much focus to the events leading up to the battle, but not to the battle itself.
  • The lead discusses scholarly assessment of the battle, but this doesn't seem to be covered as much in the article, this should be changed.
• The section Battle_of_Badr#Muslim_council_near_Badr has a lot of quotes, limit it to two for that section.
• Decide on the dates in the article: should they be Gregorian, Hijri or both? Should they include day of week? Then make the dating consistent.
• The sections on "Executions of Nadr ibn al-Harith and 'Uqbah ibn Abu Mu'ayt" and "Martyrs in the Battle of Badr" should be merged into a single section neutrally titled "Casualties".
• "Historicity" should not be in aftermath, but should be lumped together with "In popular culture" in a section called "Legacy".

In the coming days, I'll try to make some copy-edits to the article myself.VR _talk 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Suggestions taken into account in my latest edit:

• It is best to have inline citations in the lead, even though MOS:LEADCITE doesn't require it.  Not done
• The lead should omit unnecessary details ("who was later given the kunyah "Abu Jahl" by Muhammad").  Done
• The lead gives too much focus to the events leading up to the battle, but not to the battle itself.  Done
• The lead discusses scholarly assessment of the battle, but this doesn't seem to be covered as much in the article, this should be changed.  Done
• The section Battle_of_Badr#Muslim_council_near_Badr has a lot of quotes, limit it to two for that section.  Done
• Decide on the dates in the article: should they be Gregorian, Hijri or both? Should they include day of week? Then make the dating consistent.  Not done

Reasoning: There's less than 5-10 dates in the article, and I feel its necessary to keep both dates. Most articles considering early Islamic events and rulers tend to use both dates (see today's FA for example, Ismail I)

• The sections on "Executions of Nadr ibn al-Harith and 'Uqbah ibn Abu Mu'ayt" and "Martyrs in the Battle of Badr" should be merged into a single section neutrally titled "Casualties".  Done

Thanks for pointing this one out.

• "Historicity" should not be in aftermath, but should be lumped together with "In popular culture" in a section called "Legacy".  Done

--AccordingClass (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

AccordingClass those changes look good. "Executions of Nadr ibn al-Harith and 'Uqbah ibn Abu Mu'ayt" still needs to be merged into casualties. Regarding dates my point is only that they be consistent. If we want to use both gregorian and hijri, then we should do that consistently throughout the article. I've fixed that myself.

The images look fine. One image (File:Badr Council.jpg) is captioned "The council of war held by Muhammad at Badr", implying the prophet Muhammad is in the image. But the original image caption is "Muslim dignitaries hold council before the Battle of Badr". Unless you have evidence that the author is trying to depict the prophet in the image, I would use the original caption.

Other than that, the article is good to go (pun intended).VR _talk 15:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: In my opinion, casualties should only include those who died in the actual battle... however if you could provide me with a credible reason that the executions that took place after the battle should be added to casualties, I will go ahead with it. Other than that, thank you for making the dating conventions consistent, and I have changed the caption on the image. Thank you again, AccordingClass (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The article currently says However, according to numerous accounts deemed reliable, such as a number of narrations in Sahih Bukhari, and Ibn Sa'd's biographical compendium, the Tabaqat Al-Kubra, 'Uqba was not executed but was killed during fighting in the field of battle at Badr ... If this is true, then it would seem to belong in the casualties section as you said.

Also, the entire section could do with better sources. The above portion is sourced to Ibn Sa'd and Sahih Bukhari both of whom are at least a thousand years old. Are there any more recent sources for it? VR _talk 21:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You removed a citation tag in this edit. Please provide a source for by secular sources to the strategic genius of Muhammad. I couldn't find it in the article.VR _talk 21:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: In my latest edit:

• Add citations to Battle of Badr#Casualties.  Not done
• Provide source for by secular sources to the strategic genius of Muhammad.  Done

One thing to note about these two, I know there are sources for anything and everything regarding this battle or any other, however, just to find the source I have added for this second point, it took me around 20 minutes, and I do not want to spend more time looking for recent sources for the first one. Apologize in advance if this bugs you.

• Merge executions into casualties.  Done

Hope it meets the criteria and is to your satisfaction now. --AccordingClass (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Article passed.VR _talk 02:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)