Talk:Battle of the Blacks/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 01:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
This looks interesting - I'll do it in the morning. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, it'll be this afternoon/evening - our load (I"m out with hubby in the semi) got changed and we ended up going into Chicago in the middle of this huge storm. Should be stopping early enough to do the review, but I"m not trying to do it while we're driving around in the snow... -- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth: No worries, take your time. And stay safe. Constantine ✍ 07:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- General:
- Can we try to vary the way we refer to the black troops? Maybe "pro-caliph troops" or "caliph supporters"?
- The problem is that the black troops fought in large part to preserve their own position, and only secondarily out of loyalty to the caliph. Their loyalty was to the regime and its institutions, of which they were part, not to the person of the caliph. And the sources, both medieval and modern, refer to them as 'the blacks'. Constantine ✍ 17:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe occasionally "pro-regime"? Ealdgyth (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that the black troops fought in large part to preserve their own position, and only secondarily out of loyalty to the caliph. Their loyalty was to the regime and its institutions, of which they were part, not to the person of the caliph. And the sources, both medieval and modern, refer to them as 'the blacks'. Constantine ✍ 17:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- There are a lot of places where we have three and four references for a sentence - do we need all those all the time? It breaks up the flow a lot and I'm not seeing that anything is that contentious that it should need four references?
- The reason is that many modern accounts tend to be brief; they give only a partial account, and the full version had to be pieced together. Secondarily, I wanted to provide English-language readers with English-language references in addition to Halm, who writes in German, and with references to works that discuss events further from different perspectives. I've removed one reference from the only instance of four references, because indeed it did not contain anything new. Otherwise I am loath to change them.
- Can we try to vary the way we refer to the black troops? Maybe "pro-caliph troops" or "caliph supporters"?
- Lead:
"this rivalry led to an attempt by the palace" - I think rivalry is a bit out of left field here - perhaps "this conflict"?- Done.
"The battle seemed to go in the black troops' favour, when the Fatimid caliph, al-Adid, came out publicly against them, and Saladin sent his own men to burn down the quarters of the black troops south of Cairo." this is a bit of a run on sentence and something seems "off" in the verbs. Perhaps "The black troops appeared to be winning until al-Adid came out publicly against them, and Saladin ordered the burning of the troops' quarters south of Cairo."- Your formulation is indeed much better, thanks. Changed.
- Saladin's rise:
"When he died, on 23 March 1169 his nephew" ... "he" is ambigous here, as the last "he" was the caliph.- Fixed.
Second paragraph has a WHOLE lot of "regime"s - can we vary some?- Done.
- Mu'tamin's conspiracy:
"palace on horseback (hitherto only the caliph's privilege)" clunky - suggest "palace on horseback (hitherto a caliph's privilege)" or "palace on horseback (hitherto a privilege of the caliph)"- Changed.
- "inviting them to invade Egypt, thus drawing Saladin away from Cairo, allowing a coup to take place there to depose him, and then striking at Saladin's forces from both sides." the "thus" makes it sound like this happened - which it didn't. Suggest "inviting them to invade Egypt. Mu'tamin hoped this would draw Saladin away from Cairo, allowing a coup to take place there to depose him, and then the Crusaders and Fatimid forces could strike at Saladin's forces from both sides."
- Have rephrased it slightly differently. Please have a look.
"Knowing that his messenger had been intercepted, for a while, Mu'tamin too was cautious and did not leave the safety of the palace." - I got lost a bit in this. Maybe "Knowing that his messenger had been intercepted, Mu'tamin for a while was cautious and did not leave the safety of the palace."?- Much better, thanks. Changed.
- Uprising:
"who had evidently regarded Mu'tamin" do we need the evidently- Removed.
"Together blacks and their allies" ... are we missing a "the" before "blacks"?- Fixed.
"Turan-Shah's recently arrived troops" is the fact that they recently arrived noteworthy?- Removed.
"the Caliph" or "the caliph" - one or the other ...- Fixed.
"a messenger appeared at the gate of the tower where the pavilion stood" - this isn't made clear that the messenger is from the caliph? Is there some doubt (I note the lead states that the caliph publically repudiated the troops, so if there is some doubt about the identity of the messenger/who he was representing - we need to revise the lead)- Fixed.
- Aftermath:
"when they were to have seized Cairo in Saladin's absence" - was this planned or did they try ... suggest making this clearer- Fixed.
- I did do some copyediting - please check that I haven't changed the meaning.
- Thanks, it all looks fine.
- I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
- I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ealdgyth, and thanks for taking the time to review this. I've gone through your comments and answered them or made changes in the text. Please have a look. Constantine ✍ 17:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: any further progress? Ealdgyth (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth: I was waiting for your feedback on the rest of the issues that are still open :) Constantine ✍ 13:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just two - right? I offered up "pro-regime" as an option for one, and the other is ... what it is and not an issue for promotion. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth: Done. Could I also have your general opinion on the article, beyond GA scope? I would like to take this to A-class/FA soon. Constantine ✍ 16:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say A-class is easily doable. Prose may be an issue at FA - I'm not the best qualified to judge that at FA - but the sourcing meets and exceeds FAC criteria. Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth: Done. Could I also have your general opinion on the article, beyond GA scope? I would like to take this to A-class/FA soon. Constantine ✍ 16:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: any further progress? Ealdgyth (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ealdgyth, and thanks for taking the time to review this. I've gone through your comments and answered them or made changes in the text. Please have a look. Constantine ✍ 17:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Drive by comment The last section explains that the battle almost certainly didn't occur as described; shouldn't that be mentioned in the intro? --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's not what the section explains at all. The veracity of Mu'tamin's conspiracy is questioned, not the battle itself. And given that most modern histories of the period more or less repeat the unanimous report of the medieval sources, as there are no sources explicitly saying otherwise, this is merely a suspicion. A very valid suspicion, but no more than that. The bias of the sources is noted in the lede, but I've added a further explanation. Constantine ✍ 17:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, my apologies for misinterpreting it. Thank you for changing the lead. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not a problem, thanks for pointing out that it might be misinterpreted. Constantine ✍ 19:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, my apologies for misinterpreting it. Thank you for changing the lead. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's not what the section explains at all. The veracity of Mu'tamin's conspiracy is questioned, not the battle itself. And given that most modern histories of the period more or less repeat the unanimous report of the medieval sources, as there are no sources explicitly saying otherwise, this is merely a suspicion. A very valid suspicion, but no more than that. The bias of the sources is noted in the lede, but I've added a further explanation. Constantine ✍ 17:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)