Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Al-Mu'tadid

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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Al-Mu'tadid

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Featured article candidates/Al-Mu'tadid/archive1

One of the most (and virtually the last) capable Abbasid caliphs, whose life was spent very much on campaign, but who also presided over a transformative period in domestic government and the fortunes of the Abbasid state. I've worked on this article on and off since 2013, gathering material from many sources, and would like eventually to bring it to FA. Thanks in advance for any comments and suggestions for improvement. Constantine ✍ 07:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Another great article, Constantine. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Dank, as usual, for your edits. Constantine ✍ 09:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, not a lot stood out to me. I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"a goal towards which he worked by a mixture of force and diplomacy..." --> "...a goal towards which he worked with a mixture of force and diplomacy"?
is there an OCLC number that could be added for the Bowen source?
in the notes there are a couple of instances of double full stops, for instance: "57ff.." Can these be fixed?
there appear to be a couple of overlinked terms: Baghdad, Fars Province, and Sawad
capitalisation in the references, "Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate from contemporary Arabic and Persian Sources" --> "Baghdad During the Abbasid Caliphate from Contemporary Arabic and Persian Sources"?

Hi AustralianRupert, thanks for the suggestions, I've fixed them. Other than that, how was the reading experience in terms of comprehensibility? Should I expand anywhere, or was the background info adequate? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, it looks fine to me in regards to comprehensibility, but this really isn't my topic area. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks pretty good. Some comments though:

Al-Muwaffaq gave his son a military upbringing from an early age, and the young prince became "a keen horseman and took care to inspect both his troops and their mounts in person" (Hugh N. Kennedy). etc We don't normally use that form of inline citation on Wikipedia. Do we need it? It interrupts the narrative.
Byzantime empire should be "Empire"
Can you get rid of the fixed widths on the images? This causes problems for people using mobile devices.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye7, thanks for your review! I hope you enjoyed reading the article. On the inline citation, I used it because it is a direct quote, but you are right that it is redundant here, where the reference is clearly only to Kennedy. I've also swapped the fixed px in the images for a scaling factor. Anything else, in terms of background information, ease of understanding, etc.? Constantine ✍ 14:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I've added a brief section on Mu'tadid's revival of caliphal patronage for scholars, and his own interest in science. Odd that I had missed that... Constantine ✍ 22:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my area of expertise, but I think the article meets our A-class criteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.