Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid

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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Featured article candidates/Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid/archive1

The biography of one of the main regional warlords that dominated the fracturing Abbasid Caliphate in the early 10th century. As general and as ruler of Syria and Egypt he showed himself capable, wily, but also prudent and restrained. I greatly expanded this article in January, using the main prosopographical study on him and a few complementary sources. It passed a thorough GA review, and I feel it is ready for ACR scrutiny. With whatever suggestions for improvement made here, it will hopefully one day make a fine FA candidate. Constantine ✍ 16:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

I'm making some small tweaks to make it more accessible to a broad readership, but overall, your writing skill is terrific. Your articles brighten up the Main Page.
" he was later released and spent his life until his death in 957 in retirement": "his life until his death" is discordant, and "retirement" raises an unanswered question (what he was retired from). It's probably better to say that he wasn't doing (whatever he wasn't doing), if that's the point.
" Thus in 936/7 or 937/8 (most likely in autumn 937)": Personally, I think this slows the story down; I'd just go with "Most likely in autumn 937"
" The meeting was not entirely fruitless, as al-Ikhshid secured from the Caliph the recognition of his authority over Egypt, Syria with the thughur as well as the Hejaz (carrying with it the prestigious guardianship of the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina) for himself and his sons for thirty years, an arrangement that echoed the similar agreement between the Tulunid Khumarawayh and Caliph al-Mu'tamid in 886." I don't follow.
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, thanks for your thorough and well-considered copyedits. I've further rewritten the areas mentioned in the 2nd and 4th bullet points above, hopefully for the better. On the third, I did consider it but the gain in text fluency is IMO not that great. I prefer to leave it as it is. Constantine ✍ 11:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. What does 936/7 mean? MOSNUM has advice on this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the common way in literature of rendering the Hijri years into Common Era ones in the usual case where they don't coincide (in this case AH 325 and 326). Constantine ✍ 12:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - quite an interesting read, I only have one issue to be addressed:

File:Fragmentation of the Abbasid Caliphate.jpg - the uploader is not the copyright holder, so it should have the same copyright template as the original, along with the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag. Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the vote and the remark on the licensing, it had totally escaped my notice. Any recommendations, going beyond ACR requirements? Constantine ✍ 20:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- looks good, just a couple of fairly minor things image/source-wise below:

Like Dan, I think this is very well written, and I hope I didn't misinterpret anything during my relatively light copyedit.
Although I know very little about the period in question, the content seems comprehensive, neutrally presented, and reasonably easy to follow.
Image-wise, I think that the one Parsecboy mentions above would need a US-PD tag.
Source-wise, again given the caveat of not being an expert, the references seem reliable enough to me. However it doesn't look like Lilie is cited, so it perhaps belongs in Further reading.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian, and thanks for your edits and your kind comments. I've tagged the file, and as for Lilie, it is referenced by the acronym PbmZ. I am somewhat surprised there seem to be no further comments, I'll take that and your endorsements as a good sign! :) Constantine ✍ 10:42, 16 May 2015 (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.