Jump to content

Talk:Yusuf I of Granada/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 14:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just signed up to copy edit this for GoCE, I may as well get a two-fer and GAN assess it at the same time.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for taking the GOCE request and for reviewing. As always, looking forward to work with you. HaEr48 (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1334, his representatives ... and later Aragon." Still in 1334?
    Yes, clarified the timeline now. HaEr48 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite his personal dislike for Peter, he upheld the treaty" Normally one does not include regnal numbers after first mention of a monarch, as you don't here. Except where there is risk of ambiguity, could you be consistent. (On occasion you are inconsistent within a sentence - "In total Ismail I had four sons and two daughters, but Yusuf was the only child of his mother, Bahar, an umm walad (concubine) of Ismail.")
    Good point, removed regnal numbers throughout the article when they are not ambiguous. HaEr48 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the rebellious brothers of Sultan Abu Inan Faris, who deposed his father Abu al-Hasan in 1348." Who did the deposing - the brothers or Faris. And do we need to mention this at all in the lead?
    Removed the deposing. It was a way of introducing that this is a new sultan (as opposed to Abu al-Hasan mentioned earlier), but now used regnal years instead. 13:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "until he too was assassinated in 25 August 1333, when he was en route back to Granada after the victory at the siege of Gibraltar." I understood that he was murdered the night after the signing of the truce, having made some arrangements to return, but definitely not en route. Is this wrong? Thinking of FAC, I think that you could use a little more detail here: eg that murdered by two of his own nobles who were angry that he had treated with a Christian.
  • From the source I get the impression that he was already on the way, e.g. "Muhammad was killed with repeated lance strokes when returning to Granada from Gibraltar" (from Fernández-Puertas) or "se adelantaron en su camino alcanzándolo al bajar hacia la playa a la altura de la desembocadura del río Guadiaro" (Vidal Castro: Muhammad IV). Added the motive of the assassination to #Background. HaEr48 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Early life, I think that the quote may be too long, per MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text ...".
    Paraphrased. HaEr48 (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "The ports of the Strait of Gibraltar, 1329-1350". Perhaps indicate why some are red and some green?
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tend to use "treaty" and "truce" interchangeably. Technically they are different things, so it may be helpful to be more precise/consistent in their usage.
    @Gog the Mild: I understand that today they are different, but looking at the sources talking about this era I get the impression that they can be interchangeable. If a treaty has provision to stop fighting, that provision is called a "truce", so if we're only talking about the peace aspect of the treaty, it somehow becomes interchangeable with a truce. For example, O'Callaghan 2011 pp.206-207, talking about the same treaty/truce: "Alfonso XI decided to accept the surrender, but he limited the term of the truce to ten years ... The kings of Castile and Granada concluded a peace treaty on Thursday, 25 March 1344 ... Ordering Murcia to observe the truce, the king expanded the list of cosas vedadas, or goods whose export was prohibited, ..." (I added italics for emphasis). What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This will probably come across as a bit big headed, but I have 16 military FACs from the 14th century, in several of which truces or treaties were important; eg Siege of Berwick (1333) or Battle of Calais. I have an informed (which is not necessarily the same as "correct") view of how modern sources use the two terms. They did and do mean different things. I am happy to let this distinction go at GAN, but you will be challenged over it at FAC. To take an extreme example, you refer to one agreement as both a treaty and a truce in the space of 18 words: "his representatives secured a four-year peace treaty with Granada's neighbours Castile, the Marinid Sultanate, which was joined by Aragon in May. With the truce and after gaining more power". Happy to discuss further here, on the article's talk page or at FAC.
Replaced most instance of "truce" to treaty when it is related to a treaty. Thanks for the explanation. Now, I get that they are different, but still I don't think they're always incompatible. For example, I think it would be valid to say "A and B signed a treaty, which included an X year truce". Then, after X year, we can say "the treaty expired" just as well as "the truce expired" with approximately the same meaning. In any case, I made the change like you suggested. HaEr48 (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in January 1336 ... renewed the treaty for five years"; "On the spring of 1339, after the expiration of the truce". But January 1336 plus five years equals January 1341.
    The January 1336 truce was only between Aragon and Granada, clarified now. The truce with Castile and the Marinids was on 1334, with a four-year duration, so it already expired by 1338. HaEr48 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: While doing some digging, I found new info that can be added to the #Construction and #Administration sections, probably two or three paragraphs' worth. Is it okay if I add it now, or should I wait for you to finish your review to avoid confusion and edit conflicts? HaEr48 (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HaEr48, feel free to do it now, but it would be helpful if you could clearly indicate that it is new text in the edit summary. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but then refused Yusuf's offer to reappoint him as minister". As hajib, or as a minister more generally?
    Changed to vizier, per source. I suspect, given his history, it was actually as hajib, but I don't want to OR. HaEr48 (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was dismissed after a few months". Is it known how many months?
    The source only said "a few months". I checked other sources too, didn't mention anything about the length of his appointment. HaEr48 (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fled to North Africa to avoid the intrigues of his rival" You need to state who this was.
    Sorry it should be rivals - and unfortunately the source didn't mention who. HaEr48 (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The famous poet Ibn al-Jayyab was then appointed as vizier". So the position of hajib was vacant?
    Yes, added an extra explanation to illustrate the ephemeral nature of the position of hajib. HaEr48 (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for my first run through. I will mark this as done at GoCE, go through your responses above, see where we are re GAN, wait for you to add the new content (could you ping me when this is finished), then start my second run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thank you very much for your thorough and very valuable feedback, as well as for the copyediting. I responded to/addressed all of your comments above. I also added new text as I previously indicated, and it is finished now. I tried to use the word "expand" in the edit history, but might have forgotten in some revisions; probably the easiest way to tell is that they include increases of more than 1,000 characters noted in the revision history. I apologise if this gives you inconvenience. Looking forward to your comments. HaEr48 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good looking additions. I am now starting my second run, checking your responses as I go.

  • "In February 1334, his representatives secured a four-year peace treaty ... with the treaty in place ... in 1338 or 1340" either of the later dates are more than 4 years after Feb 1334, so wouldn't the treaty have expired?
    You're right. For some reason, the source linked it to the stability resulting from the peace, but given the timeline I updated to no longer link these events. HaEr48 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we be told who "Ambrosio Huici Miranda" is? A modern historian.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He captured Alcalá de Benzaide next paragraph During the siege of Alcalá de Benzaide much later the capitulation took place on 20 August 1341." Maybe mention events just once, and in chronological order.
    Updated the section to be more chronological. Added some details too. HaEr48 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Castilian and Genoese ships" Link "Genoese" to Republic of Genoa.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • Do we know why Yusuf disliked Peter?
    The source only mentioned it passingly, based on Yusuf's private remarks. I removed it from the lead to avoid undue weight, but it is still mentioned in the article body.HaEr48 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you. responded to your new remarks. HaEr48 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am promoting this. More than up to GA standard. I am also declaring it "done" so far as the copy edit is concerned. I am sure that there is further work which could be identified, but I have read it so many times that it is starting to blur. In my opinion it is ready to go to FAC; nice work.
As an aside, IMO, it is a little on the detailed side. The focused v broad balance is always subjective, but personally I find this towards the unfocussed side of acceptable. Not an actionable comment, and you may well feel that my FAs are summary to the point of not being comprehensive; it is just an observation in passing. Good luck at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If you fancy reviewing Battle of Cape Hermaeum. which is currently at FAC, that would be most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, Thank you very much for your review and copyedit, and for being thorough and patient with me. I believe the review has resulted in much improvements. Your FA candidates are always tempting to review, no promises but I will consider it. HaEr48 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yusuf_I_of_Granada/GA1&oldid=967364220"