Talk:Battle of Khazir/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take this. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Suggestions

Images; there are no images in the article. A brief search did not suggest anything relevant, but have you considered perhaps having some pictures of the area, or a map to help place the event.

I added an image of the Khazir River and a coin depicting Abd al-Malik, the Umayyad caliph. As for a map, I might take a stab at creating one; otherwise, I have to make a request which could take some time. --Al Ameer (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

The Battle of Khazir (/ALA-LC: Yawm Khāzir) took place in August 686 near the Khazir River in Mosul's eastern environs.; might be worth saying something like "in modern day Iraq" or something like that to place this immediately in the mind of the reader.
secretly defected to Ibn al-Ashtar; why is this fact of especial importance to include it in the lead?
The latter was a hated enemy; feels like this falls afoul of MOS:Words to Watch, consider revising (I believe it's also unsourced, see point 5 below)
the pro-Alid forces of the Kufa-based; is there a simpler expression of who these forces were? I'd have to read the article about Alid to be sure.
for the Caliphate; consider clarifying which Caliphate, also should it be capitalised?
After consolidating authority in Syria and restoring Egypt to the Umayyad realm; so, as the lead should summarise the article I'd expect to see some general background about the Second Muslim Civil War for context here. In fact, probably I'd be tempted to take content from the lead and flesh it out a little for this section. Then summarise more briefly the belligerents in the lead.
After consolidating authority in Syria and restoring Egypt to the Umayyad realm, Caliph Marwan I (r. June 684–April 685) dispatched an army led by Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad to wrest back Iraq (the part of Mesopotamia south of Tikrit[1]), control of which was split by a number of anti-Umayyad factions, including partisans of al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi, other pro-Alids and Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr.; run-on sentence, consider splitting.
In early January 685, while Ubayd Allah was mobilizing his troops at the Euphrates town of Jisr Manbij, his second-in-command, Husayn ibn Numayr al-Sakuni, had destroyed a pro-Alid band, known as the tawwabun or "Penitents", led by Sulayman ibn Surad at the Battle of 'Ayn al-Warda in modern-day Ras al-Ayn.; run-on sentence, consider revising.
Meanwhile, in the eighteen months following; not sure about the "meanwhile", I'd tend to avoid it.
skilled; editorialising, again I'd tend to avoid this wording
The predominance of Persians in al-Mukhtar's army was noted by Umayyad defectors to Ibn al-Ashtar who complained to him that they rarely heard a word of Arabic spoken by al-Mukhtar's soldiers whom they viewed as unfit or untrustworthy to confront the Syrian Arab tribesmen under Ubayd Allah's command; this is a long sentence, I'd suggest breaking it up. The phrasing implied to me they were defecting because of the predominance of Persions. Perhaps introduce defection as a seperate point to set the context?
reportedly; I suggest saying who has reported this.
retorted; retort implies some level of outrage, again I'd attribute this view.

I've addressed most of the points above, except for adding more context to the background/lead which I will do tomorrow. --Al Ameer (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It was a bit unclear to me in the background section who controlled Mosul in early August as Al-Mukhtar divided his attentions between Mosul and Kufa. Might be worth just noting this for clarity.

Actually this is unclear to me as well, my assumption is that it was nominally Zubayrid territory like much of the Jazira. Will find out and add accordingly. --Al Ameer (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a mawlā of a Bajila tribesman who either commanded the shurṭa or the ḥaras (personal guard) of al-Mukhtar; this lost me a bit, did he command the aḥāmira, or the shurṭa/ḥaras?

I think I've made this a little less confusing. I didn't explain this in the article because of the unnecessary complexity, but for the record, Abu Amra led both the ahamira and the shurta/haras. Most likely the haras, according to the source, because unlike the typically Arab-dominated shurta, the haras was dominated by the ahamira. The ahamira simply refers to the Persians of Kufa. --Al Ameer (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrantX: Thanks for taking this nomination, and excuse me for the late response. I've been intermittently revising the article per the points you've raised so far. I will try to address the remaining issues by tomorrow. --Al Ameer (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great; I see a lot of the points are covered off :) when you feel you've finished give me a ping and I will give it a last look over before promotion :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrantX: Just finished adding more context to the lead. Let me know if there's anything else that should be done. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Looks fantastic to me - good work. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrantX: Thanks for the thorough review and your helpful suggestions. Cheers! --Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]