Talk:Izzat Darwaza/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I find it very interesting and well written. I have some comments below. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

My main issues are with the biographical structure.

• There does not seem to be much about his personal life. What about his wife? Where did he die? What cities did he live in?

This was by far the most difficult issue for me. I could not find any info on his wife or satisfactory info on the rest of his personal life anywhere. I searched deeply through google books and the web, but could only find scraps of info. Actually, information on his life after 1947 was scarce in general. I will continue to look for anything on his personal life (perhaps new sources will pop up on the net), but don't count on it. As for the cities, I put where he lived throughout the article. Here's a chronological list: Nablus, Beirut, Nablus, Damascus, Nablus, Damascus, Bursa, and Damascus. I don't think its necessary, however, to list the cities where he lived. Maybe I could add a residency paramter to the infobox. Would this suffice? --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• "After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Darwaza spent the rest of his life in the modern state of Syria where he left politics to concentrate on literature. Although he did much of his writing in the 1930's and 1940's, he did not have any of his works published until the 1960's." Why was this the case? What did he do in those years besides write? Was he a professor?

The sources don't tell me exactly why he left politics, but all he pretty much did afterwards was concentrate on literature. I have mentioned in the "Later life" section that he aided in the Syro-Egyptian unity talks of the late 1950s and that he granted an interview in 1983 (there was also an interview in 1974, I could mention this, but there are no specific details regarding this interview, other than it occurring.)

• Were most of his writings political? The one presumably fictional story recounted seems to have a political theme. Was he interested in literature as literature?

None of his writing was fictional (except of course the Angel and the Land Broker-the one you are speaking of). However, not all of it was political. There's a larger subsection about his works on Qur'anic interpretations. Also in the main Literary works section, I have added a passage on his memoirs where he details his childhood life in Nablus. In addition, he was the author of one of the first histories of the Arab nation, as mentioned in the first passage. If you want I could add more detail to both the Nablus memoirs and the Arab history book. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps "Version of Arab nationalism" could be formulated into a "Legacy" section so that you more clearly have a biography rather than a description of a political situation.

Taken care of ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

—Mattisse (Talk) 15:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

More comments

• "where he commenced an Arab nationalist educational process." - clunky and needs clarification

I replaced "commenced" with "initiated". I don't know if this helps much with clarity though. What I'm trying to say is that he implemented a pro-Arab nationalist educational system where he promoted the ideals of Arab indepedence and unity. Do you have any suggestion on how we could write a very brief summary of that in the lead? --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Could you just say it as you did above? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Done. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• In some of the sections, paragraphs could be combined to reduce choppiness and introduce some variation in para length.

I noticed you have taken care of one example. I will take care of any ones that I spot. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• (Not in chronological order) "Originally, Darwaza supported the Ottoman Empire based on his feelings of identification with Islam and belonging to the larger Ottoman Muslim ummah ("nation"). He was also an Arabist and was enthusiastic about the Young Turk Revolution in 1908, expecting that the new Ottoman regime would grant the Arabs their legitimate demands (i.e. reforms and autonomy within the framework of the empire, rather than total independence).[6] In 1906, he served in the local Ottoman administration as a clerk in the Department of Telegraphic and Postal Services (DTPS) in Nablus.[7] His first assignment in that department was for the District of Beisan and northern Palestine (the Galilee and northern Samaria)." This needs to be slightly rewritten so it is chronologically in order. eg (rough draft):

• Originally, Darwaza supported the Ottoman Empire based on his feelings of identification with Islam and belonging to the larger Ottoman Muslim ummah ("nation"). In 1906, he served in the local Ottoman administration as a clerk in the Department of Telegraphic and Postal Services (DTPS) in Nablus.[7] His first assignment in that department was for the District of Beisan and northern Palestine (the Galilee and northern Samaria). He was also an Arabist and was enthusiastic about the Young Turk Revolution in 1908, expecting that the new Ottoman regime would grant the Arabs their legitimate demands (i.e. reforms and autonomy within the framework of the empire, rather than total independence).

I rearranged pretty much the way you have it above. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• "As such Darwaza was driven to support the Arab independence from the empire ..." - Not sure what "As such" means here.

Clarified. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• "the Party of Harmony and Freedom in Nablus in 1911" - What was this party's goals?

Countering the CUP's Turkification policies. I just clarified in the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• "In congress, he was also the delegate for the Jamma'in subdistrict of the District of Nablus." - Was this an appointed position?

I have no idea how delegates came to be; whether they were appointed by higher authorities or were elected by the districts themselves. I know they were appointed and not elected though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Within the DTPS ..." - perhaps it could be made clearer in this section that he was working for the DTPS all along.

I apologize, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Could you elaborate. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • That apparently he was working for the Department of Telegraphic and Postal Services while he was forming and joining various political groups? (Perhaps what is confusing is the mixing of his career and his political activities? I am not sure.) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Darwaza left the Ottoman civil service ..." - Was his first job in 1906 a civil service job?

Yes, I believe so. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • So he worked for the Ottoman civil service for quite a while? (I am just trying to put the pieces together.) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, from 1906 to 1918 (when the Allies forced out the Ottomans from Beirut). --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I must admit the politics are a little hard to follow for someone unfamiliar. Darwaza was Palestinian but ended up living in Syria. His views were pro-Arab, but mostly pro-Islam (anti-Turkey)? (Actually, the "Legacy" section helps in sorting this out. In the article, it is somewhat confusing. Is there a way to provide more orientation to the reader in the article?)

I agree. There should me more orientation for those readers who are unfamiliar with the subject (probably the majority). How do you suppose we go through with this?

• • • Perhaps by giving a little of the background involved. This is a period of Palestinian/Syrian/Islamic/Arab history that I know little about. Clearly a lot was happening politically and Darwaza seems to have been an influential and respected thinker. It seems that he was dealing with many important issues that are still relevant today.
      • Actually, now as I look back at the article, I'm not sure how much more I could put in on his views. It's made clear that he became anti-Ottoman, that's obviously not the problem. However, if the article gives you the impression that his views were pro-Arab, but mostly pro-Islam is a problem because that's not correct. This is what I think needs more clarity in the Biography section. How about I make it clear in the first passage of the Fight against the Mandate that rather than being "mostly pro-Islam", he "used Islam to support the ideals of Arab nationalism." He certainly took a great interest in the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad, but he was opposed to Islamist thinking and his love for Islam did not induce him to stray from Arab nationalism, but rather strengthened his nationalist views. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps supplying more dates, eg "Fight against the British Mandate (1930-1947)"? - Just an idea.

I have never liked including dates in section headings-clutters things up. What would be the purpose of this? --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Just to orient the reader, but that can be done other ways. The section headings don't help with the chronology and only have meaning once the reader has read the section. But I have no specific suggestions. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, now I understand better. However, I just looked at a dozen or so good and featured biography articles and none have indications of when the info in the particular section occurred until the reader actually reads the section (at least no indication for readers who are not familiar with the subject.) --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Again, the later sections have several short paragraphs of the same length. It is more interesting to introduce variation and reduce sameness.

Should I merge the first and second paragraphs of the Later life section? --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Are his books read today? Were they popular at the time they were published? Why were they published so much later?

None of the sources ay whether his books are read today, but his Arab history book was extensively used in Mandatory Palestine and Iraq which I have stated in the first paragraph of the Literary works section. I presume his Qur'anic interpretation is used today or during the middle-20th century-will try to find more before stating this in the article. I think the source mentions why they were published so late so I'll elaborate in the article once I confirm this. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Not everyone can publish so much. He seems to be one of those people that is falling through the cracks of history because of his time period. Or perhaps because of a lack of sources in English. I have never heard of Mandatory Palestine. (I guess that explains why Palestine was disenfranchised. That is all history that I do not know about.) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Yes, by the time of his death in 1984, he had over thirty books published. Most of his works were published in the 1960s, but some exceptions include his History of the Arabs book which was published in the 1920s and believe also his fictional story on the land broker. By the way, if you don't know, Mandatory Palestine and Mandatory Iraq simply refer to the British Mandates of Palestine and B.M. of Iraq which existed throughout the 1920s, '30s, and '40s. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• One more thing! Should you not have a section "Selected works" or something similar where you list the most important of his works? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I am not sure that this issue applies here. You have done a very good job. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Uses reliable sources c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Cover the broad context and major areas b (focused): Remains focused on article topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass!

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)