Talk:Forced conversions of Muslims in Spain/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 16:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A big topic, and a substantial-looking article. Very clearly written and laid out, and appropriately illustrated.

A few queries:

The article doesn't seem to explain why the Crown of Castile began its policies of converting Muslims. The article says that Muslims had lived alongside Christians in most of Castile for generations: why did policies towards them change so dramatically in 1502?
Why were the various Spanish kingdoms so reluctant to let Muslims emigrate if they wanted to get rid of them? The article doesn't seem to answer this question.
All but one of the sources are very up-to-date scholarship, published in the last 25 years. It seems odd, then, that there are so many references to a work by Henry Charles Lea, which is more than 100 years old. Why?

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From tomorrow, I am going to have limited wikipedia access until 21st August. I am putting this review on hold for two weeks to allow the nominator time to address my queries. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: coincidentally, I am also currently on limited internet access until around that date. Can you give me time, until, say the 28th? I'm sorry for the delayed response. HaEr48 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HaEr48: fine by me Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Thank you for the patience. To answer your questions:

The conversion in the rest of Castile happened shortly after the conversion in Granada, and the conversion in Granada happened because the rebellion provided a convenient justification. I updated the "rest of Castile" section to explain the link between the Granada conversion and that in the rest of Castile. I hope it clarifies.
From the sources I read, the kingdoms did not actually want to get rid of the population, they just want them to convert. The decrees were framed as some kind of "expulsion" so that theoretically the conversions were free. "Look I told you you could go, but you chose to become Christians, so..."
I use Lea because (1) it often goes into details for events that are mentioned only briefly in other source. For example, Charles V's dilemma about his oath to protect Muslims and the eventual solution when the Pope released him from that oath. (2) its copyright expired so it is available for free (3) I made sure that the parts I cite don't contradict the more recent source (4) Henry Charles Lea is acknowledged as an authority on Spanish history in this period, and the work still gets cited in more recent academic sources (5) It's not easy to find English sources which goes into such details.

HaEr48 (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: good to see that you're back around.

Thanks for the clarification. Looks great, although I did some minor copyediting for grammar.
I added another clause explaining this; you might want to check my edit to make sure I haven't screwed anything up.
"goes into details for events that are mentioned only briefly in other sources" is a perfectly good reason, thanks. And Lea was an expert in his day, so as long as the article uses him carefully that should be fine. Spotchecking 5 uses of Lea at random, they all seem to be used to support specific facts, so that's okay.

And now, just looking through the article again, to double-check that it meets all the GA criteria, I see a few more really nitpicky things:

"forcibly coerce" in the lead seems redundant; just "coerce" would be enough.
I see lots of duplicate links in the article. "Crown of Aragon is linked 4 times in the body of the article, as well as in the lead and an image caption, for instance. WP:DUPLINKS says that any given article should normally not be linked more than once in the article body.

But basically, the article meets all the GA criteria. If you are happy with my changes to the article, ping me and we'll go on to the awards ceremony... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Thank you for the copyediting and the additional clause. I checked them and they're great. As suggested, I reworded "forcibly coerce" and removed a lot of duplicate links. Please check if my recent edits are ok and let me know if there's anything else I can do. HaEr48 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me now. Congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]