Talk:Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 17:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I will take this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

Yes

1. a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Yes (according to the limited sources available to me).

2. It is broad in its coverage.

Yes

1. a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Yes

1. Fair representation without bias:

Yes

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

Yes

2. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

Yes

1. a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Yes

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• I am not sure about the 1991 date for the encyclopedia. The link is to the article in the 2nd edition of 1965 and Canard died in 1982. However, you may have a later edition which reprints the 1965 article. I would however include at least the lead editor in the source - I thought at first he had written the whole encyclopedia, not just that article.
• I think the best way to cite authors is to incorporate them into the sentence, with their full name linked at first mention and just the surname thereafter. Thus instead of (M. Canard), e.g. "According to Marius Canard..." at first mention and then maybe "Canard says..." the second time. However, this is what I have been asked to do at FA. It is probably not a requirement for GA but I think it is better.
• Jarrahid - as the link is in red I think a few words of explanation in brackets would be helpful.
• "engaged in repeated rebellions against the Fatimid Caliphate, which controlled southern Syria at the time, and repeatedly forced to exile in consequence". I think "repeatedly defeated and forced into exile" would be clearer than "repeatedly forced to exile in consequence"
• "with the Alid Abu'l-Futuh al-Hasan ibn Ja'far proclaimed as rival Caliph". I think you need to make clear that he supported the rival caliph - I was not sure what this meant until I read the full account below.
• " a supporter of the Qarmatians". Presumably as he supported a rival caliph he was not a follower of the Qarmatian religion, but perhaps worth pointing out that he was prepared to support a group who were not orthodox Muslims?
• "Mufarrij first appears in the aftermath of the Battle of Ramlah in 977". However Gil p. 343 has a story about his son at [1] in 974, which seems relevant as an indication that he was then already middle aged.
• "he was found by Mufarrij, who was befriended with him" This is unclear. I would say "who befriended him."
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

• "When Abu Taghlib, joined by Mufarrij's rivals, the Banu Uqayl, attacked Ramlah, Mufarrij called upon al-Fadl for aid". You need to spell out the al-Fadl agreed to the request.
• in autumn 983 the Tayy accompanied the Byzantine doux of Antioch, Bardas Phokas, when he went to relieve Aleppo from an attack by Bakjur". I think it is worth spelling out that the Tayy did not just accompany the Byzantines, but fought with them.
• I have made a number of copy edits. Change them if you are not happy with them.
• Review completed. I will put it on hold for now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and thoroughness. I will try to check your comments today or tomorrow, but I may not have the time and will then be away from my computer for a few days, so please be patient. Thanks, Constantine ✍ 10:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Deal with it when you have time. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Your copyedits are fine. I've struck out the points I've addressed above. On the encyclopedia issue, the problem derives that it was originally published in fascicules between 1954 and 1965, and published as a whole in 1965. I have the fourth impression, published in 1991. I am not sure what the value of adding the three main editors would be, an encyclopedia is obviously a collective work. On the 974 thing, Gil is probably wrong: according to Canard, this Hassan ibn al-Jarrah was not the son of Mufarrij, but is perhaps to be equated with Mufarrij's father Daghfal ibn al-Jarrah. In general, I have found Gil's interpretation of chronology and some details to be frequently wrong, which is why I've relied mostly on Canard, whose thoroughness and skill I have reason to trust from other articles, and used Gil for corroboration and details. Constantine ✍ 11:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

• I have made further edits. Of course again change any you are not happy with.
• "The Fatimid commander, Munis" but in the next sentence Munir.
• " by arranging the re-appointment of a Patriarch to the vacant see". I suggest linking 'see' to Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.
• On the encylopedia, I think you need the original date so that the reader can see how old it is. You could say have "1965 [1991 impression]" (if this is correct).
• You do not need the three editors. Adding "|Bearman, P., et al" will change the template to show it as an article in the encyclopedia.

This is looking good and nearly there. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. As a general review, did you find it easy to understand the article and esp. follow the context and persons mentioned? That is always my chief concern in my articles, as I tend to write on obscure periods and places, with which the average reader will be totally unfamiliar. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have passed it now. Good work. I did have to work to keep track, but I often find this as I am not good at keeping track of names. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)