Talk:Muhammad I of Granada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arjuno-Arjona

Mohammed I ibn Nasr nacio en en Arjona (Jaen). No en Arjuno

Mohammed I Ibn Nasr was born in Arjona (Jaen). Non in Arjuno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singara (talk • contribs)

This has been corrected now. HaEr48 (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

Thanks Seraphim System for the copyedit. About your two clarification requests:

• About the second paragraph of the lead, indeed Muhammad's 18 years of peaceful relations with Castile was followed by conflicts, beginning with 1264 when Muhammad supported Muslim rebels in Castile. If this transition sounded abrupt, I added "however" and "turned against", to help reader realize this. Does that help? I'm open to other suggestions as well.
• About the Muslim vs Christian POV regarding the reason for "Initial conflict with Castile", the secondary source (Harvey) just presented the two accounts without deciding who's right. I don't object to your removal of "crusading drive". Do you need further clarification about this?

--HaEr48 (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I added contemporary to make it clear that the disagreement is in primary sources, not secondary sources. Is there any additional secondary source analysis about the causes? (Secondary sources do not always fully rely on primary source accounts but have a more complex analysis. I think it would be good to say something here about what the majority view is in current secondary sources about the causes of the war, as this is a different issue from what the primary source accounts say.)Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the clause about 1,500 sheep because I did not think it was essential and I thought the sentence was easier to read without it. I think "tried to send supplies" and "efforts were thwarted by beseigers" is stronger without being interrupted by the detail about sheep—in my opinion this lessened the impact of the sentence so I removed it. Another question about the initial conflicts in Castille — since this is a biography, I don't think we should go into too much detail about the battles, but do the sources say anything more about Muhammad's involvement or responses to the conflict, beyond trying to relieve Jaen and agreeing to terms with Ferdinand? Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Common name: Muhammad I or Ibn al-Ahmar

The article as of now used a mixture of "Muhammad" or "Ibn al-Ahmar" when referring to the subject throughout the article. e.g. "Before Ibn al-Ahmar's rise to prominence, Ibn Hud was the de facto ruler of Al-Andalus" vs " until the early 1260s, when various actions by Castile alarmed Muhammad". Sources use both names, and the preference vary from source to source. From the sources referenced by the article:

• L.P. Harvey: Islamic Spain, 1250 to 1500 (1992): prefer Muhammad
• The Encyclopaedia of Islam: Nasrids (1993): prefer Muhammad
• Kennedy, Hugh. Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus (2004): prefer Ibn al-Ahmar (see p.272 and around)
• Simon R. Doubleday. The Wise King (2015): prefer Muhammad
• Joseph F. O'Callaghan, The Gibraltar Crusade (2011): prefer Ibn al-Ahmar
• W Montgomery Watt, A History of Islamic Spain (1965): prefer Muhammad (see p.126)
• The Cambridge History of Islam (1970): prefer Muhammad (see p.429)
• Francisco Vidal Castro (2000). "Frontera, genealogía y religión": prefer ibn al-Ahmar (see pp 797-8)
• Antonio Fernández-Puertas (1997). "The Three Great Sultans": prefer Muhammad I

From these, it seems there are no consensus, although Muhammad is slightly more prevalent. Moreover, "Muhammad I" is a more systematic name (regnal name + numeral) in sync with the naming of other European monarchs in Wikipedia. It also links nicely to the Muhammad II of Granada up to Muhammad XII of Granada article. Therefore I will update all to Muhammad or Muhammad I for consistency. HaEr48 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Muhammad I of Granada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 09:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Some sentences seem a little long for easy comprehension. But that may be a personal preference and the article more than meets the GA requirements.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	All of the GA level MoS requirements are met.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Densely cited.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	An appropriate set of RSs. Good to see so many relatively recent ones.	Pass
(c) (original research)	There is no evidence of OR.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Earwig shows no issues.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	All major aspects of the subjects life and times are covered.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article seems appropriately focused.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
There is no evidence of bias and the article is presented with a NPOV.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	So far as I can ascertain, all images are free use.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Adequate use of images, with appropriate captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	A fine, well worked article. Detailed, succinct, to the point. An informative treat to read. Densely cited to a solid mix of sources. Also good to see the appropriate use of Islamic dating. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I plan to start this in two or three days. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References.

• Several books are missing publisher locations.

• Updated. HaEr48 (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• A few are missing ISBNs. HaEr48 (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Updated. The remaining ones are papers, not books, so they don't have ISBN.

• Optional. Single page references should ideally be p., not pp.; multi-page references pp., not p.

• Fixed p vs pp. HaEr48 (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the review. Let me know if there's more I can do. 06:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi HaEr48. No problem, I have been eying this since you nominated it but have been struggling for time. I didn't ping you as these were my initial thoughts prior to actually reading the article. (Which I hope to start, or even finish, tomorrow.) It seems in good shape and I don't foresee problems. Thanks for remedying them so quickly. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@HaEr48:

Prose

• I have made a few small copy edits; revert anything you don't like.

• Thank you. All of them looks good to me, except that I don't understand why you modified "His religious views appeared" to now say appear. Shouldn't it be in past tense? HaEr48 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You are quite right. I meant to change it to "His religious views appear to have transformed during his career." but relooking at it I don't see why I needed to change it. Reverted.

• "Ibn Hud". It is usual to give names in full on first mention.

• Done. HaEr48 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think that Alcazaba should be in italics, with a bracketed translation.

• Done. HaEr48 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Optional: "During his rulership, Muhammad placed loyal men in castles and cities". "Rulership" seems a little clunky to me.

• Changed to "rule". HaEr48 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• "the Banu Ashqilula". Sometimes you use the definite article and sometimes you don't. This should be consistent. (IMO it should be used.)

• Added the to everything

• "The Banu Ashqilula agreed to negotiate under the mediation of Al-Tahurti from Morocco. Before these efforts bore fruit, Muhammad suffered fatal injuries after falling from a horse on 22 January 1273. He was succeeded by his son and designated successor Muhammad II." It would be useful to know the outcome of the negotiations.

• I tried to briefly describe the short-term resolution of this conflict here. Does that make sense?

That makes perfect sense. It just seemed to leave a loose thread from a readers point of view. Now tied up.

• Initially the occasional date is given parenthetically in the Islamic calendar, which I think is a very appropriate idea. This stops in 1238 (365). I think that a couple of further 'translations' would be helpful.

• I added another one for death. But sources don't always give the Islamic calendar year for many events, especially the minor ones. An Islamic year does not begin or end at the same time as the solar year, and is a bit shorter, so there's no one-to-one mapping. I think it's okay to only have it for major events, as we do now. What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Just what I was trying, poorly, to communicate. That looks good.

A fine article and interesting to read. Could you take a look at the points above and let me know what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Thanks for your feedback, copyediting and suggestion. Let me know if you have more feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Image Vandalization

First image on the article has been replaced. Revert this image back to what it was before. 107.204.188.83 (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone fixed it. [1] HaEr48 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Why on the top is another date od birth?

"Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Yusuf ibn Nasr(1195 – 22 January 1273), "

... ... ... and at the end is another?

"Muhammad I of Granada Nasrid dynasty Cadet branch of the Banu Khazraj Born: 1191 Died: 22 January 1273"

So 1195 or 1191 or... just better leave (? – 22 January 1273)?

Lien Shan (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The 1195 birth is sourced in the article, and the 1191 is not, so I updated the succession box to use 1195. HaEr48 (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)