Talk:The Nabataean Agriculture/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 06:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take a look at what appears to be a very thorough and interesting article. I should have some comments within a day or two. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

@Cerebellum: I have to confess that this is going to be a rather light review, simply because the article is so exceedingly well written that I have little to point out. You should seriously consider taking this article to FAC, in my humble opinion.

First paragraph of "Contents" section - per WP:INTEXT, you should probably provide in-text attribution for quotes that express opinions, such as "repetitive", "baffling", "learned and perspicacious observer," etc.

Done for now, I'm thinking about rewriting that paragraph to not use direct quotes. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would briefly summarize the "modern scholarship" section in the lead, if only just to say that "modern scholars have shown increased interest in the book's authenticity and impact" or something like that.

Done --Cerebellum (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a nitpick (and one that isn't required for GA purposes), but I would hyphenate "xth-century" when used as an adjective or a noun. See MOS:HYPHEN. So, for instance, "10th-century Iraq", "14th-century copy", etc. (The fact that I have nothing to do but point out hyphen errors tells you something about the quality of this article.)

Done --Cerebellum (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

played a part in sparking the Andalusian Arab Agricultural Revolution. - I don't think you explicitly make this connection in the body, so I would add it there as well, presumably with a citation.

Good point! I may have dreamed that up myself, I can't find a citation for it at the moment. Removed for now, I'll add it back if I can find something. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for this remarkable article. I'll have more comments soon. (That is, if I can think of any.) Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was the first agronomical work to reach al-Andalus - I'd clarify that this refers to modern-day Spain/Portugal.

Done --Cerebellum (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I have for you, so I'll put the nomination on hold. I'll be glad to pass it once these decidedly minor issues are addressed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: Thank you for the review and the kind words! I've never taken an article to FAC but hopefully I'll get my act together and nominate this one soon :) --Cerebellum (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerebellum: Before I let you go, I'd just like to ask one thing. The article essentially says (once in the lead and once in the "composition" section) that most of the scholarly community believes the work to have been a genuine translation. Hämeen-Anttila (in Artificial man, p. 38) seems to say precisely the opposite, writing that "the majority of scholars take the text as a 9th/10th century forgery." Since I don't have all the sources, I can't really assess this one way or the other. But I would be interested to hear why you conclude that modern scholarship has coalesced around the viewpoint that it's genuinely a translation. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in here, but I think this may be of some help. Yes, this is something to which I already pointed earlier in my comments on the talk page. What Hämeen-Anttila 2003b ("Artificial man ...", p. 38) states is the scholarly consensus in 2003, which still firmly held (as it did throughout the 20th century) that the work is a pseudotranslation, originally written in Arabic though based on older Greek and Syriac sources (like much early Arabic literature of this type probably was). As Hämeen-Anttila noted there (note 10), the most significant exception at the time was Toufic Fahd, a leading scholar on the subject, whose "discussion of the text is, however, not critical and he seems to base his opinions merely on a firm belief". The turning point is really Hämeen-Anttila's 2006 book (The Last Pagans of Iraq), in which he extensively argued that the work may well be an authentic translation. Since Hämeen-Anttila is the leading expert on the subject today, and since his views on this have, as far as I know, not yet been challenged, I believe that we should mainly follow him. However, I also believe that the article currently overstates this, as though the work was somehow definitely proven to be an authentic translation from the Syriac, which is certainly not the case. I think we should try to make it clearer that the question of authenticity is fundamentally speculative in nature, and that the current view is that though some doubts remain, the work may actually have been an authentic translation. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful; thank you, Apaugasma. It would be useful if some post-2006 opinions on authenticity could be found, although I certainly understand if none can be located. Barring that, I recommend reflecting both positions in the lead (e.g. "Scholars debate whether...") and then explaining in the body how that debate has progressed, reflecting essentially what Apaugasma says above. By the way, I read (in Mattila's article) that Fahd supported a somewhat earlier date ("somewhere during the first Christian centuries"). That might be worth mentioning as well, although it seems to be a minority view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Apaugasma! For post-2006 opinions on authenticity, the only sources I'm aware of are Hämeen-Anttila's 2018 article in the Encyclopedia of Islam 3rd ed., and filaha.org. Having gone through the Encyclopedia of Islam editorial process, I think the 2018 article is pretty reliable. It skirts the authenticity issue for the most part but says, "Ibn Wahshiyya claims that the work is a translation of an ancient Syriac text written some twenty thousand years earlier. Despite the exaggeration, it does seem that the work goes back, in part, to late antique sources, probably in Syriac." Filaha.org says, "Nearly a hundred years later there was a revival of interest in the work with scholarly opinion tending to regard the work as ‘authentic’." I'm not sure how reliable it is, apparently it is "coordinated" by someone named Dr. Karim Lahham but it does not say who wrote the individual pages. This evening I'll see if I can find any other sources. I wish I spoke German and had access to Fuat Sezgin's GAS, apparently he devoted ten pages to Ibn Wahshiyya.

If I can't find more recent sources I'll change the lead to something like, Modern scholars believe that the work may be an authentic translation from a Syriac original, although the question has not been fully resolved. For the composition, I'll make it clear that Last Pagans of Iraq was a departure from the prevailing viewpoint at the time. Apaugasma, if you have a better way to phrase it I'm all ears! --Cerebellum (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sezgin isn't really helpful here, because as is well known, he always argued for early datings and for the authenticity of textual claims, most often against the complete assembly of other scholars. Hämeen-Anttila 2003b dismisses Fahd's views on the basis that most of his arguments boil down to proof by assertion, but Sezgin is really the unacknowledged master when it comes to this. I just read Sezgin 1971, GAS, IV, pp. 318–329, and unsurprisingly enough, according to Sezgin the work is an authentic translation from a 5th- or 6th-century original. Anyways, I have incorporated Sezgin's views in the article, and changed the formulations elsewhere so as to be a bit more cautious. Please feel free to reword if you think I have tipped the balance too far in the other direction. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 15:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I appreciate the context on Sezgin. Your changes look good to me. Extraordinary Writ, what do you think? --Cerebellum (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

As explained below, I am of the opinion that this article meets the GA criteria.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The prose is clear, correct, and engaging.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
The article incorporates a range of diverse and reliable scholarship, consisting mainly of books and peer-reviewed journal articles. Almost every sentence is cited in-line.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig's tool raises no concerns aside from duly-cited quotations.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The article looks at the text from a wide variety of angles, addressing its agricultural, religious, political, and historical value.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Based on the discussion above, I conclude that the article appears to provide due weight to all relevant scholarly perspectives.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
All images are tagged as free-use, and the tags appear to be valid.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Adding alt-text to the images, while not necessary for GA purposes, would probably be required were this article ever taken to FAC.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article is easily the best one I've reviewed at GAN, and I laud the nominator's great work on it. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]