Talk:Siege of Almería (1309)

Siege of Almería (1309) has been listed as one of the Warfare 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 13, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 24, 2018.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that at the end of the unsuccessful Siege of Almería, some of the defeated Aragonese attackers were left under the protection of the Muslim defenders while awaiting their evacuation?

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 11, 2020, August 11, 2022, and August 11, 2024.

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / Spanish / Medieval / 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:
/
	European military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Almería (1309)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 16:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this review on over the next couple of days. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No copyvio... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... no DAB links... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... regular links are fine Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cite #25 (Manzano Rodríguez 1992, p. 348.) doesn't point anywhere Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lede could probably be split into two paragraphs
Split. HaEr48 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"jointly with a similar campaign by their neighbour Castile" er, I'm not positive I understand this phrasing, could you try and clarify? (was it a joint campaign or just a similar one?)
Tried to clarify: "was the initial Aragonese target in a joint Aragonese-Castilian campaign aimed at conquering Granada". Would this work? The idea is both were campaigning to conquer Granada, but only Aragon was involved at Almeria. I'm open to other suggestions too. HaEr48 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" ~~had~~ prepared for the siege by strengthening" not really needed?
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"and caused trouble in Granadan territories" could you specify?
Specified. HaEr48 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Emirate of Granada was the last remaining Muslim state on the Iberian peninsula." might consider beginning with "In 1309" or "By 1309" to give the reader an easy anchor
Specified "since the mid-thirteenth century". HaEr48 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Granada was allied with another Christian kingdom, Aragon" couldn't hurt to add where Aragon is in relation to Granada?
They're not directly bordering each other, but both are in the Iberian peninsula. Would "neighboring Christian kingdom" be misleading? Else, I don't know how to describe it briefly. Any suggestions?HaEr48 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, perhaps just 'nearby' since they aren't directly bordering... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"who began to make plans" maybe add an "who all began to make plans"?
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The pope granted James II two thirds of the decima" is there a link you can put in?
For decima? unfortunately, no. Decima has a disambiguation page, and tithe is not this. HaEr48 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Emirate of Granada not only had to defend Almería on its eastern front." perhaps "... had to defend Ameria on multiple fronts"?
Done (had to defend itself). HaEr48 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"to be clearly exaggerated" is the 'clearly' needed?
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"resisted by pouring boiling oil and other flammables" mildly unclear who they poured it on?
Done (the assailant). HaEr48 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"and forcing the assault to be aborted" this wouldn't really be one of the ways they resisted, more the result of the assault?
Rewrote sentence. 14:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"claiming to kill 22,000 inhabitants" perhaps add a date and add a "claiming that they"?
Reworded, but no date was given in the source unfortunately. HaEr48 (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, deleted this part because, rereading the article it seems 22,000 refers to the number of rocks instead of killed inhabitants. HaEr48 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"dressed as Muslims" this may be really stupid of me, but how could they dress as a Muslim?
Sorry that was unclear. The source says they dressed in burnouses in order to seem to be Muslim - I presume that was the style of Muslims at that time/place. HaEr48 (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"came out of the ambushes too soon" how does one come out of an ambush?
"ambushes" here means "concealed positions". Changed to clarify. 14:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"Most of them managed to reenter the city via the side entrance that happened to be made ready to open the day before, but some were left behind...they managed to reenter the city." perhaps you could remove the repetition of 'managed to reenter the city'?
Done. 14:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"but served as a skillful diplomat in negotations with James II." is it really neutral to call him 'skillfull'?
Removed. HaEr48 (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"were tempered by the loss of to Castile"?
Oops, added "the lost of Gibraltar"

Very nice article, some minor comments, feel free to discuss/ ask for clarification on any/all things. These comments are rather subjective, so I won't feel offended if you don't like any/all of them. Source review to follow... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Thank you for the helpful comments. I've replied, mostly applying your suggestion/feedback and also asking some queries. Let me know what you think. 14:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better, thanks! I'll be checking Harvey shortly to assess the referencing quality... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cite 15b says that the quote is 'Allah', not 'God'
Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
might be missing something, but I don't see " It meant that there was a short time before the weather got cooler, and if the siege lasted until winter it would be an advantage for the defenders who did not have to be out in the field" in the source on the cited page...
Well-spotted, actually it's in the previous page (174). Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
page numbers for ref #24 are somehow off
Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't check all the sources, but they seem to be high quality, and generally support the text, so I'm satisfied. Let me know if I just didn't see something-- I have been known to suffer from temporary not-reading-the-whole-page-ness. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Thank you for the review. I've responded above. HaEr48 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HaEr48,This article is now well written, referenced, comprehensive, free from copyvio, and otherwise meets the GA criteria. I'm happy to pass. Nice work!