Talk:Nasir al-Dawla/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DCI2026 (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I plan to start on this review this evening. I will also be reviewing the other al-Dawla article. dci | TALK 20:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I will be analyzing each section below with regards to criterion 1. I will address the others below using a more standard checklist, but I'm more comfortable with this method of reviewing.

Prose and structure (criteria 1a and 1b)

Lead

I would suggest including his presumed death date, which you have in the infobox, somewhere after his name in the lead. dci | TALK 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Constantine ✍ 08:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should he be referred to as Hasan or al-Hasan in the lead? I noticed Hasan in the lead, and al-Hasan in the main text. When editing the lead, I used "Hasan". dci | TALK 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The formal name would be "al-Hasan", but except where his full name is mentioned, I've altered it to the simpler "Hasan". Constantine ✍ 08:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. dci | TALK 02:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origin and family

Who defeated Hamdan, and what relatives were imprisoned with him? It appears his sons remained free. dci | TALK 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added who defeated them, on which relatives I'll try to find out. Constantine ✍ 08:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find out more on this, I would need Canard's book on the Hamdanids for more details. There is no specific mention of the sons, only that Husayn remained free because he surrendered his fortress to the Caliph. I've removed the "and his relatives" until more can be found. Constantine ✍ 06:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could add a little more background on Al-Qahir's brief ouster of Al-Muqtadir, mentioned toward the end of the section. dci | TALK 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I've tried to keep the info on the internal developments of the Abbasid court to a minimum, as the Caliphate's politics of the time make "byzantine" politics look uncomplicated and I don't want to derail the article. There is some info in the article on al-Muqtadir, but I'll see whether I can expand a little. Constantine ✍ 08:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though fascinating, politics of these times were very intricate and complex; your argument makes sense. There's no need to overly modify it if it would only confuse a reader. dci | TALK 02:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest altering the phrase regarding the prominence of al-Hasan's father. It seems that all of the brothers were quite prominent in their own right, and the eldest son Husayn seems to have been quite influential, too, having secured the family's continued existence as a ruling house. dci | TALK 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an opinion voiced by M. Canard, who was probably the chief expert on the Hamdanids, so I am reluctant to remove it. Husayn was also important in retaining and expanding the family's power base, but he was early out of the picture and it was Abdallah who established ties with the Abbasid court and became invested as governor of Mosul. Constantine ✍ 08:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out my point here; if the expert says so, let's keep it in. dci | TALK 02:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation of control over the Jazira

I made several changes to this section. I have noticed the Hasan/al-Hasan problem here, as well, and tried to keep it as it was, but may have altered the spelling of the name in some cases. If I made any errors, please revert them, but I think my edits eliminate the few issues I had with this section. dci | TALK 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with your edits, I am quite grateful for them. Constantine ✍ 08:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struggle for control of the Caliphate

What is the standard for capitalization of caliph/caliphate/other words derived from "caliph". I understand that Caliphate is to be capitalized, but am wondering whether it is always necessary to capitalize "caliph". dci | TALK 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it is like every other title: when we speak about "the Caliph" as a person, it should be capitalized, but "caliph" is the office. It really is a blurry distinction, but as I mostly use "Caliph" to avoid repeating the name of the incumbent, I think my use is correct. Or isn't it? Constantine ✍ 08:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems perfectly fine, I was just wondering. I suppose it's rather like "the Queen" when referring to Elizabeth II, or "the President" when referring to Barack Obama, rather than "the president". dci | TALK 02:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several people are mentioned in this section, mainly caliphs, rebels, and usurpers of power. Perhaps you could give a little more background (just a phrase or two) on the revolt against al-Muqtadir. The leader of the rebellion, the Abbasid general, was a benefactor of al-Hasan's family earlier; is there any way to mention this relationship? I think the abundance of names could confuse readers, and, as removing them would be quite detrimental to the article, identifying new or rarely-occurring old "characters" might help. dci | TALK 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clarify the original section a bit.

I would suggest not referring to al-Hasan as "the Hamdanid"; it could be confused with Hamdanid family rule. Also, you use the term "evict" frequently. Do you mean that Bajkam actually came marching in, trying to take over the lands for the central Abbasid government, or that he used political maneuvers to get al-Hasan out of the governorship of the mentioned region? dci | TALK 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the "Hamanid". On the "evict", Bajkam he actually marched on Mosul, but as the Buyids after him could not maintain himself in the region and made terms. Constantine ✍ 07:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Bajkam murdered? As a result of his unsuccessful actions? dci | TALK 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the circumstances of Bajkam's death. Constantine ✍ 07:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wars with the Buyids

Double check for typos; nothing serious, though.

Is there any way to include more information on his personal life? Wives, additional children, presence of concubines? Some of this can only be assumed, perhaps, but do you have any information regarding them in your sources? If not, no big deal, but if you do it would be nice to add some background on his wife Fatima, who helped to depose him in the end. dci | TALK 01:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am missing the main source on the Hamdanids, Canard's book, which would allow me to write a far more detailed article. Constantine ✍ 07:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a source after the statement "Nevertheless, the Hamdanid administrative machinery seems to have been fairly rudimentary"? dci | TALK 01:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is the same as the reference at the end of the sentence. Constantine ✍ 08:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there is no need to overdo referencing using a single source. dci | TALK 02:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the usual thorough review, especially as one sees too few of such around! I've begun addressing your concerns one by one. Constantine ✍ 08:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find much else worth mentioning here, but I did ask for one source below, on the over-comment for the checklist. I'm moving on to the Sa'd al-Dawla article immediately after this. dci | TALK 01:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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

Great article, just one last thing. In the last section, "Domestic policies", a source is probably needed, even if it is the same as the later ones, after the first sentence.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A very good article! dci | TALK 01:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]