Talk:Sack of Mecca

Sack of Mecca has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 31, 2024. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Sack of Mecca appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 July 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 930, the Qarmatians sacked Mecca, massacred Hajj pilgrims, plundered the Kaaba, and carried off the Black Stone to their homeland in Bahrayn?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sack of Mecca (930).

Wikipedia

Islam: Muslim history / Shi'a Islam Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Muslim history task force.
	This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force.

Military history: Middle East / Early Muslim

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Saudi Arabia Low‑importance

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that in 930, the Qarmatians sacked Mecca, massacred the Hajj pilgrims, plundered the Kaaba, and carried off the Black Stone to their homeland in Bahrayn? Source: Rezazadeh Langaroodi 2015: "Abū Ṭāhir attacked Mecca and massacred the pilgrims in the streets, in the precincts of the Kaʿba and even inside the Kaʿba itself...He dislodged the Black Stone"
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1971 Moroccan coup d'état attempt

Created by Cplakidas (talk). Self-nominated at 13:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sack of Mecca (930); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

The article met the criteria through many extensions. In addition, it is judged that it meets the appropriate reference criteria by referring to officially published books. The proposed hook also provides sufficient attention. Religious disputes have always attracted the attention of many people.Kloyan.L (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Bruxton (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sack of Mecca/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cplakidas (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 22:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I am happy to review this. Bruxton (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Regarding your use of dashes 927-928 consider using "927–928"

AFAICT it is already an endash? Constantine ✍ 19:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put them in the lead. Bruxton (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"winter 929/930" consider "929–930"

Changed. Constantine ✍ 19:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the lead says "The city was plundered for eight to eleven days," the body says "The Qarmatians continued their killing and plundering for eight or eleven days". Can we line them up by using the language of the lead?

Done. Constantine ✍ 19:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Lead

"all its decorations and relics taken away" consider "were" taken away

Done. Constantine ✍ 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This act meant a complete break between the Qarmatians and the Islamic world" maybe "meant" is the wrong word here. The act "caused" or some similar?

Replaced with 'was tantamount to'. Constantine ✍ 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motives for the attack

"On the other hand, as the historian Heinz Halm points out" consider replacing the colloquial "On the other hand"

Removed. Constantine ✍ 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Tahir and the war with the Abbasids

"Even the city's iron gates were dismantled and taken back to Bahrayn" consider using some other set up instead of "even" or just say "The city's iron gates were dismantled and taken back to Bahrayn"

I have added something before 'even', but I don't think removing it improves anything... Taking the gates of a sacked city with you is a fairly unusual move and is remarkable as such. Constantine ✍ 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? "Under the leadership of the barely 16-year-old Abu Tahir" suggest removing barely

Removed. Constantine ✍ 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, factional rivalries in the Abbasid court" "furthermore" is a WP:WTW and should be remove

Removed. Constantine ✍ 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"but the authorities nevertheless paid a hefty sum" suggest removing nevertheless

Removed. Constantine ✍ 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of the pilgrims and plundering of the city

"One report, obviously exaggerated, suggests" do we know why it is obviously exaggerated?

This comes from the cited source, I have rephrased accordingly. Most medieval reports have a tendency to inflate casualties, booty, size of enemy armies, etc. Constantine ✍ 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motives for the attack

"who were considered as usurpers by the" I think we can remove the word "as"

Removed. Constantine ✍ 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

"Nevertheless, the affair of the false Mahdi tarnished the prestige of Abu Tahir" consider removing nevertheless

Removed. Constantine ✍ 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Earwig has no matches, so individual sources will be checked.

? You should consider using {{r|Johnson|p=51}} citation style - some of your citations give a page range of ten pages

I don't understand why that would be required. Where more than one or two pages are referenced, it is because the text summarizes these pages. I also cannot find a range of ten pages anywhere. Constantine ✍ 20:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the Qarmatians of Bahrayn section - only one source is accessible here. AGF

? Abu Tahir and the war with the Abbasids section all sources are offline

Not done I am not able to access citations throughout. I wonder if you might email me some screen shots of sources so that I can spot check? @Cplakidas: After you address the items I will do more checks. Bruxton (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: Certainly I can email you some photos of sources; which ones do you require? Constantine ✍ 20:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: pick at least one citation from each section. Bruxton (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: I assume you want me to focus on Halm and Daftary, since these sources are offline; it will likely take a couple of days. Constantine ✍ 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: do your best - I was hoping to wrap this up by Sunday. Bruxton (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: email has been sent. Constantine ✍ 10:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do not speak or read German so I have to AGF on the Halm source. The Isma'ilis I was able to spot check several citations to see that they line up. Bruxton (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Three images appear in the article and they are correctly licensed and free. Bruxton (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chart

Status:

100% reviewed

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.	Well done!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.