Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Salih ibn Mirdas/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2019 [1].

Salih ibn Mirdas edit

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Salih ibn Mirdas, an ambitious and energetic emir from a powerful medieval nomadic Arab tribe in northern Syria who founded the Mirdasid emirate of Aleppo in the early 11th century. He ruled the city between 1025 until his death in battle against an equally ambitious Fatimid general. His sons and grandsons successively ruled Aleppo for another 50 years, with interruptions. Salih began his career seizing strategically-located fortresses in the Euphrates valley and confronting the Hamdanid holdovers who ruled Aleppo. He ultimately evicted the latter, but they were replaced by Fatimid governors. Later, when the disparate Arab tribes of Syria united for the first time in centuries, Salih used the momentum to attack the Fatimids throughout Syria and finally conquer Aleppo. He paid them nominal allegiance afterward. The historians of his time hold that Salih's emirate, held together by the strength and solidarity of his tribe, Shia Muslim in orientation and friendly to Christians, was well-oiled and just. I've been working on the article on/off since 2016 and it's currently a GA. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use |upright= rather than fixed px size to scale images
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Salih_ibn_Mirdas_gold_dinar_1028.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaia (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nikkimaria, not sure what you mean. Any idea how or what kind of tag I need for this? —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The pictured object will be in the public domain due to its age - you just need to add one of the PD templates based on copyright expiration to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I’ve added the PD-100 years template for the original work. Let me know if this satisfies the requirement. —Al Ameer (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley edit

Impressed at first read-through. Back in the next day or so after close perusal. Tim riley talk 19:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim riley. Looking forward to your thoughts/suggestions. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have only two small points on the prose:
  • "Newfound" – the article is in AmE, and perhaps "newfound" is OK therein, but it looks very odd to an English eye.
  • "executed and confiscated the estates of numerous..." – for clarity I'd make this "executed, and confiscated the estates of, numerous..."

That's all from me. Happy to support. A most readable article; thoroughly and widely referenced; as well illustrated as I imagine is possible; balanced in content; seemingly comprehensive, to this layman's eye; meeting the FA criteria in my view. I enjoyed reading this excellent and instructive article, and I hope we can look forward to more FACs from the same editor. – Tim riley talk 22:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks for the glowing remarks and your support for this nomination. I made the change suggested by your second point on the prose. As for the first, I like "newfound", but if you have a word that makes better sense, I'll take your suggestion. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"newfound" is for all I know OK in American dictionaries, but it looks odd to a non-American. The Oxford English Dictionary hyphenates the word: "new-found" Tim riley talk 23:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • Looks interesting, will have a look soon. At first glance, I wonder why one of the photo captions doesn't state the date of the photography, when all the others do? FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you’re gonna take a look at this, considering your experience in the topic area. I’ve made the captions consistent as far image dates are concerned. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Aleppo in infobox capion?
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation for footnote 2?
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nothing else is known about Mirdas" I assume this refers to Salih ibn Mirdas's father, but readers might think it refers to Salih ibn Mirdas' own early life or something (if they interpret Mirdas as a "last name in this sentence).
Should it be “him”, “his father”, “Salih’s father” or “Mirdas ibn Idris”?
I would just spell out the name. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The latter was strategically" Why not just "the town"? "The latter" implies you could mistake the man for a place.
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with local toughs" Thugs?
Yes. I think “toughs” is more neutral than “thugs”, but if you don’t see a problem with the latter, I’ll use “thugs” instead. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware "toughs" was a word, what does the source say? FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Toughs is a word, but Bianquis uses “roughs”. Should I just change it to “ruffians”? —Al Ameer (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ruffians is probably closer to the source. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why spell out Aziz al-Dawla at every mention? Should only be necessary the first time (as you do with other names)?
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aziz al-Dawla was assassinated" By who?
Clarified. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zakkar views Salih's destruction of Aleppo's walls as a tactic" Earlier you just say the towers of the walls?
Clarified. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who played a secondary role to an amīr" Maybe amir should be explained too (or spelled "emir"), as emirate is spelled with an e here (readers might not make the connection), and you also mention "Banu 'Amir".
Done. Just changed it to “emir” throughout. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further down you also say "and several emirs from other clans", so might be best to just say emir throughout.
See above. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hassan ibn Mufarrij is spelled out twice in succession.
Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Homs is a much more common spelling than Hims, should it be used?
Done, did the same for Ba’albak/Baalbek. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which continued, with occasional interruption, until 1080" Who took over then?
This is a very interesting point I had considered adding then didn’t out of concern for focus/concision. The fact that you’ve raised it makes me believe my original consideration was correct. After the Mirdasids, another Arab emir, the Uqaylid Muslim ibn Quraysh took over for a year and then was rid of by a Turkic ruler. The reasons it’s interesting is because, as Zakkar and Bianquis note, the end of the Mirdasids signaled the end of Arab rule in Syria. From that point until World War I 800 years later, a series of Kurdish, Turkic or otherwise non-Arab dynasties/states would control this region. I will find a concise way to mention this in the article about the founder of the Mirdasid dynasty. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be very nice for historical context, I'll support once it is added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Done. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the map and extra context does it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and helping improve the article FunkMonk. —Al Ameer (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • The sources appear to be of the appropriate scholarly standards of quality and reliability. About two-thirds of all references are to a single source
  • Yes, Zakkar’s highly comprehensive work on the Aleppo Emirate is apparently the ultimate secondary source for Salih’s biography and actually appears to be a major source used by Bianquis, Lev and Amabe as well. Al Ameer (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few minor presentational points:
  • Bianquis and Crawford both require subscription for access. The (subscription required) template should be added
  • De Slane is out of alphabetical sequence in the bibliography
  • Lev publisher location is missing
  • Likewise for Sobernheim
  • Although google links are included for a number of the source books, they do not usually include the reference pages in their previews and are therefore somewhat worthless. Spotchecking was thus extremely limited. I did, however, see the sentence: "The fall of Sidon, in particular, alarmed the Fatimids, who had largely prioritized control of Syria's port cities over the inland towns and feared that other ports would subsequently recognize Bedouin rule" cited to Lev, p. 51. I was unable to see where this statement is supported by the source.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for spotting that. I was a page number off. It’s pages 52 and 53. Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All sources issues resolved satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Constantine edit

Glad to see this here, I will start reviewing it shortly. Constantine ✍ 08:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone through the article and made a few minor copyedits, feel free to revert.
  • The EI2 article on al-Maʾarrī was not written by Gibb, but by P. Smoor
  • IIRC, the Citadel of Aleppo as it stands today (or rather, stood until recently) is mostly an Ayyubid-era structure. This should be noted in the picture, otherwise one might assume that it looked like this during Salih's lifetime.
  • @Cplakidas: Good point which I hadn’t considered. The same goes for the Rahba fortress image, which was also an entirely new Ayyubid construction. I’m trying to formulate a concise way to modify this, could you suggest a rephrasing of the caption? Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Al Ameer son: Something like "The present structure/The structure as depicted in the photograph dates from the XX century" should suffice. Constantine ✍ 12:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is the occasional inconsistency of terminology between English and Arabic, e.g. wazir vs vizier, or amir vs emir. I would suggest standardizing it, and, at least for the terms that are relatively well known in English (emir and vizier), to use the English forms throughout, with the Arabic term in parentheses at the first occurrence.
  • Done. I’ll just omit the Arabic entirely for those terms. Let me know if there are others that would fit this category. Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it is a fine, very detailed, and well written article. I am familiar with the events mostly from a Byzantine/Fatimid perspective, but couldn't find anything missing, and I think it is easy to follow even for the lay reader. I'll have another look in a couple of days, and if my comments above are addressed, will be happy to support then. Constantine ✍ 12:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine, your input is always highly valued. —Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On looking through the article again, I realized that it is missing a map. If you don't have the time/skills to make one, you can use the option of simply pinpointing the locations on a map of Syria (cf. what I did in Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915)). Constantine ✍ 12:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a map is sorely needed. I have a request pending from Ro4444, but I’m not sure if that will happen or not. I lack the skills unfortunately. I’ll try the way you mentioned for the Fatimid invasion article. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: I've added a map like the one you mentioned in lieu of a more detailed map that better depicts the contemporary political scene, which I hope to add in the near future. What's really needed is a detailed and accurate map of the 11th-century Mashriq showing the Byzantine, Fatimid and Abbasid states and the constellation of Arab emirates and tribes (Mirdasids, Uqaylids, Numayrids, Mazyadids and others) that controlled the region in the decades prior to the ascent of the Turkic powers and Crusaders. Such a map could be applied to numerous relevant articles. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Yes, such a map would be valuable, I may start one when I have a bit more time on my hands. I've also had another look, and cannot find anything really missing. One final thing, you have Sayf al-Dawla in the "see also" section, and though I can guess why, for the average reader that might not be clear; perhaps add a brief description, "Sayf al-Dawla, founder of the Hamdanid emirate of Aleppo" or something like that? I am nevertheless switching to support as this is not a critical issue. Well done, once again. Constantine ✍ 20:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support ;) I added the description. Al Ameer (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Salih_ibn_Mirdas/archive1&oldid=890375793"