Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alodia/archive2

< 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) 07:38, 22 December 2018 [1].

Alodia

edit
Nominator(s): LeGabrie (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: , Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa

After a withdrawn FA nomination six months ago and a large rework in the meantime I hereby nominate this article again. It is about Alodia aka Alwa, a Christian Nubian kingdom in what is now Sudan. LeGabrie (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC) @Ian Rose: Nomination has been approved LeGabrie (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attar-Aram syria

edit

I will slowly review this. Looks interesting

  • I notice the name in Greek in the lede, followed by a citation. It is preferable that citations are not present in the lede. Suggest moving the citation to the first sentence of the Sources section. It could be like this: Alodia, written as Aρογα (Aroua) in Greek,[citation] is by far the least studied of the three medieval Nubian kingdoms.
  • Same regarding citation number 4. The literal quote should be moved into the main text with the citation. Maybe in the lede you can reword the quote to keep the meaning and eliminate the need for a citation.
Thanks for reviewing. However, I would object that there are numerous FA's which have citations in their lede, like the Byzantine Empire (which I used for orientation while reworking Alodia), the Han dynasty or Macedonia (ancient kingdom). LeGabrie (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those featured articles should probably change this. The same case happened a while ago. The FAC coordinator Ian Rose had this to say: Generally, anything in the lead and the infobox should be cited in the main body, meaning the mentions in the lead and infobox do not need citation. An exception is when a quote is used in the lead. Hence, no need to delete the citation from the qoute, but I maintain my point regarding the Greek name --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I can just delete the citation and leave it be, without shoving the Greek name into the main text? I also have a question since you can write Arabic: can you maybe transliterate 'Alwa (including the apostrophe) into the Arabic script? That's the name the kingdom has in the Arabic sources. LeGabrie (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That should be suitable. As for the Arabic name, its: علوة .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice the lede is too short for such an article. A lede needs to summarize the article and prepare the reader for what he will read in the main text. The current lede is mainly about the political history and does not cover the Administration and Languages sections. It also does not give adequate space for the economy section. I suggest an expansion to the lede.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? LeGabrie (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. More to come soon.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I finished and the article is comprehensive and well sourced. I suggest asking the Guild of Copy Editors for help though. Some sentences were clunky and the prose could use the help of a guild editor--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Initiated a request. LeGabrie (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the lead map, and is there a reason for that caption to use smaller text?
You mean the text that appears right under the map? Isn't that the default text size? LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't make it small on purpose, that has to be the default size. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Approximate_extension_of_Alodia_based_on_accounts_of_Ibn_Hawqal.png: what sources were used to identify areas of uncertainty?
Will rework parts of the map soon. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Reworked the map and included sources I used for modification: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Approximate_extension_of_Alodia_based_on_accounts_of_Ibn_Hawqal.png LeGabrie (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The infobox is using flag parameters for icons that aren't flags
Isn't that permitted? We don't know the flags of Kush or Fazughli. The "flag" used for the Funj is their royal insignia. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the maps. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Africa_in_400_BC.jpg: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Same with File:Kingdom_of_Fazughli.jpg
First image: No idea, didn't make it. Second one: Mohi El-Din Abdalla Zarroug: "The Kingdom of Alwa". LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
II II
  • Suggest scaling up the ground plans
Upscaled them by +10% each. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:King_Moses_George_of_Makuria.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:ArnoldvHarff3holzschn1859.jpg, File:King_sennar_1821.jpg
Added tags for the last two pics. What tag should I use for the first one? The original painting is from the 12th century, but it was published only in 1967. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. Added tag. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ground_plan_of_Mound_C_church,_Soba.jpg: any more details on source?
Somers Clarke: "Christian Antiquities in the Nile Valley", 1912. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1926. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild

edit

Hi again LeGabrie. Disclosure, I assessed this for GAN. It is looking good.

  • I have fixed some referencing errors. You will want to check that you are happy with the changes.
  • It is on the request list for a GOCE copy edit, which would be helpful. I shall wait for this to be completed before commenting further.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind.

  • All images need alt text.
How? Simply by adding "|alt=(repeat caption)"? LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the idea, but the alt text should be a description, eg 'The stumps of three stone columns emerging from an expanse of sand' or similar.
@Gog the Mild: Good enough? LeGabrie (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LeGabrie: I have tweaked some. The idea is that the alt tells a visually impaired reader what they would see if they could (see). Feel free to change or revert any you aren't happy with. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs checking for duplicated Wikilinks.
Is it ok to have a Wikilink to a certain entry in both the lede and the main text? LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes.
Done. LeGabrie (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where there are several cites they should be in number order. Eg cites 132 and 85.
I don't understand. LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is note 2 in italics?
You mean the second annotation? Fixed. LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and Sources
edit
  • I have carried out a mild copy edit. Could you check that you are happy with it.
  • "Alodia, also known as Alwa was a medieval Nubian Kingdom" Why does Kingdom have a capital K?
Ask the guy who changed that a couple of weeks ago. Fixed.
The joys of Wikipedia.
  • "It was the last of the three Nubian kingdoms to convert to Coptic Christianity" This gives the impression that Alodia converted to Coptic Christianity from another form of Christianity; if this is not the case, could you rephrase.
Fixed.
  • "in size, power and economic prosperity" In this context, what does "power" mean?
More soldiers. See also al-Yaqubi and al-Aswani who both excplicitely stated tht Alodia was more powerful.
In which case could I suggest 'in size, military power and economic prosperity"?
Done.
  • "A powerful king and provincial governors appointed by him ruled this wide, multicultural empire." Was Alodia an empire or a kingdom. Or did it vary over time? If the latter, could you specify (approximately) when it was which. If one of the former could you decide which and be consistent.
"Empire" in the sense of a large state. Rephrased.
  • "Nubian and Greek literacy flourished." I think that you mean 'Literacy in both Nubian and Greek flourished'.
Fixed.
  • "a period of Islamization and Arabization" Capital A.
Fixed.
  • Caption "Estimated extension of Alodia in the 10th century." "extension" should be 'extent'.
Fixed.
  • "What is known about it comes mostly from a handful of medieval historians from the Arabic world." Two "froms". Maybe 'What is known about it comes mostly from a handful of medieval Arabic historians'?
Fixed.
  • "The contemporary John of Ephesus" It is not clear to me who or what he was contemporaneous with.
Contemporary with Alodia's Christianizatin.
Yes, indeed. The words immediately before "The contemporary" are !2th century"; you can see the scope for confusion. Possibly reword as 'The events around the Christianization of the kingdom in the 6th century were described by the contemporary John of Ephesus.' or similar?
Done.
  • "it is only the capital Soba which received extensive excavations" This reads badly, maybe 'only the capital Soba has been extensively excavated'?
Fixed.
  • "These were unearthed in the early 1950s and again in the 1980s and 1990s." Does the source actually mean this? Or something like 'A number were unearthed in the 1950s, and further examples in the 1980s and 1990s'?
The source says that parts of the town itself were excavated during that time. Rephrased.
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
edit
  • "Nubian connections with Darfur have been suggested, but evidence is lacking." This is, I think, the first mention of Nubians. A brief explanation of who or what Nubians/Nubia are/is in the context of Alodia would be helpful.
There is already a wiki link to Nubia in "Sources"
"Nubia" and "Nubian" crops up repeatedly. To the uninitiated this means nothing. Given how often it is mentioned and its centrality to the topic I don't consider a Wikilink sufficient explanation at FA level.
Added an explanation in "geography".
  • "Abu Hamad likely constituted the northern top of the Alodian province known as al-Abwab" Given that al-Abwab has just been Wikilinked as a town this doesn't make sense to me. (Not even enough for me to suggest an alternative. How can a town constitute the "top" of something?)
"Given that al-Abwab has just been Wikilinked as a town" I think you are confusing Abu Hamad with al-Abwab. Abu Hamad is possibly the place which constituted al-Abwab's northernmost point.
Yes sorry. But this phrase currently does not make sense. You could say 'Abu Hamad was likely close to the northern border of the Alodian province known as al-Abwab' or something similar - if that is what is meant - but "northern top" has to go.
Rephrased
  • "Instead several forts have been recorded." I don't think that "instead" is a good word in context.
Rephrased.
  • "Lying between the Nile and the Atbara" This is the second time you refer to the Atbara, but it is Wikilinked to a city. If it is a city, the use of the definite article is unnecessary; if it isn't, you need to change the Wikilink.
Atbara River
Origins
edit
  • "It seems likely that the Aksumite presence in Nubia was short-lived." "Nubia" appears from nowhere - a brief introduction to it would be helpful.
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nubia was already mentioned in "Sources".

@Gog the Mild and FunkMonk: I will take a break from Wikipedia from 17th December. Would be cool if we could get this done until then. LeGabrie (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christianization and peak
edit
  • "the Alodian king was aware of the baptism of Nobadia in 543" Do you mean 'the conversion of'?
Fixed.
  • "and eventually asked him to send a bishop" I am not sure why you use "eventually", I would suggest deleting it.
Fixed.
  • "spread among the Alodian populace is, however, uncertain." Suggestion only, delete "however".
Done.
  • "Roughly sixty years after the baptizing of the Alodian nobility" I am not sure what this adds. A reader can readily calculate the interval. I would suggest deleting.
Done.
  • "Muslim Arabs from the Byzantine Empire conquered Egypt" Er, "from the"?! Do you mean 'invaded the Byzantine Empire and conquered Egypt'?
The copy editor messed that one up. Fixed.
  • "probably with the throne passing between the states after each king." I can't work out what you mean by this.
King A of Makuria dies, king B of Alodia becomes king of both states. King B of Alodia dies, king C of Makuria becomes king of both states.
OK. What I should have written was 'I don't think that a reader would understand this, could you elaborate or rephrase.' Also, it sounds inherently implausible; is it solidly nailed down to a RS?
Welsby 2002, p. 89: "If there was intermarriage between the two royal houses the principle of martilineal succession [the son of the king's sister becomes the new king] may frequently have cause the throne to pass to a king whose father was of the royal family of the other state."
Excellent. That's nice and clear. If you can get the sense of that into the article it would be great.
Better?
That's fine. Thanks.
  • "that relations between the two kingdoms intensified." "intensified" is not a good word to use here.
Fixed.
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline
edit
  • "Basically, no native or imported pottery or glassware, postdating the 13th century could be identified at Soba." Suggest deleting "Basically" and both commas.
Fixed.
  • "During the 14th and 15th centuries much of what is now Sudan was eventually overrun by Beduin tribes. 1. What is "Beduin"? 2. I don't see what "eventually" adds to the sentence.
Isn't that how it's written in American English? @Gog the Mild:
  • "They perhaps profited from the plague which might have ravaged Nubia in the mid-14th century killing many sedentary Nubians, but not affecting the nomadic Arabs." "perhaps", "might"; does the source support this?
Yes, Werner 2013 makes it clear that the plague in Nubia is just an assumption, although he is convinced that it happened.
  • "greatly benefiting from their large population" Again, is your source solid? Nomadic peoples are not noted for their "large population"s relative to agarian societies.
Hasan 1967 is a standard work on this matter. Keep in mind that the Bedouin population in Upper Egypt and the Eastern Desert grew continously over the course of centuries before finally migrating to Nubia.
  • "Here they parted west to migrate along" What does "parted west" mean?
Replaced with "headed west".
  • "Alodia, in particular, the Butana and the Gezira, was the target of" I think that the second comma should be deleted.
Fixed.
  • The way that the text switches between "Arab", "Bedouin" and "Beduin" is confusing. If they are synonyms, it would be best to chose one and be consistent.
  • "with 150 lordships residing on both sides of the Nile." If this means what I think it might, it may be better expressed as 'with 150 independent lordships existing, controlling much of both sides of the Nile.' or similar.
  • "Archaeology attests that Soba was largely ruined at this time." Just checking that you mean to use "at", and not 'by'.
"By" would be more accurate?
Depends. "at" suggests that it was actually ruined in 1474, or within a year or two. 'by' means that it was in a state of ruin in ~1474 and that this being ruined happened some (unspecified) time before 1474.
Ah. Fixed.
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fall
edit
  • "However, most modern scholars tend to agree with the Arab narrative." This doesn't really make sense. Do you mean something like 'Most modern scholars agree that the Arabs destroyed Alodia'?
Fixed.
  • "late 15th century he gathered the Arabic tribes" Did you mean to use "Arabic" here instead of 'Arab'? There is a difference in meaning.
Fixed.
Legacy
edit
  • "an oath they did not dare to break" This is a bit peacocky. I would suggest rewording or deleting.
Fixed.
  • "the shaving of the head of a king upon his coronation, or, according to Jay Spaulding" I suspect that you mean 'and' not "or"?
Fixed.
  • "In the area around Soba, the tribal Abdallab identity prevailed." Is that atypo for 'Abdullah'?
As mentioned in the article, the Abdallab are a Sudanese tribe that traces its origin to Abdallah Jammah.
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administration
edit
  • "The people did not oppose him, but prostrated themselves before him" IMO this really doesn't work. (The first infelicitous sentence I have noticed.) Could you think about just what information you want to convey to the reader and reword please.
People would not oppose the king after he enslaved them, but instead prostrated themselves.
I think that you have two points in this. The mass of the people accepted this state of enslavement by their monarch and Court etiquette represented this by enforcing a policy of prostration when addressing the king. If I am correct, then consider a rewrite to make these two points clearer.
Here is the original source (al-Aswani): "Their king can reduce to slavery any of his subjects he wants whether he be guilty of a crime or not, and they do not oppose him, rather they prostrate themselves before him. They do not revolt against his order, however, unjust it may be; [on the contrary] they call out loudly "May the king live (al-malik ya'īsh!)! And let his order be executed!""
  • "There might be evidence a mobile royal encampment existed" Do you mean 'There is evidence a mobile royal encampment may have existed'? (You probably don't - just checking.)
Nope.
  • "arabophone" Upper case A?
Probably. Fixed.
  • "closely intertwined" "intertwined" means closely. Suggest dropping "closely".
Fixed.
  • " boats would have played a central role in transportation infrastructure." The text goes from "had" and "were" to "would have". It would be better to replace this last with 'had', or 'may have', depending on what the source says.
Rephrased.
Church architecture
edit
  • "The internal walls used to be covered by painted whitewashed mud" Painted and whitewashed? Usually it is one or the other.
"Painted" in the sense of Christian wall paintings (of which none survive but tiny fragments).
Yes, understood. Where does the whitewash come in?
First the bricks, then the whitewashed mud and finally the paintings
  • "The "Mound C" church, perhaps the oldest of the churches of Soba, was around 13.5 m (44 ft) in length." With the other churches you use is. Is there a reason for the change?
Should all be simple past now
  • "What seems clear is that Alodian churches lacked eastern entrances and tribunes" Link "tribunes" to [Tribune (architecture)].
Fixed.
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agriculture
edit
  • "Instead, figs, acacia fruits, dom palm fruits and dates could be identified"> "Could be"; do you mean 'have been'?
Yeah.
  • "dom palm fruits" The usual spelling is 'doum'.
Alright
Trade
edit
  • "Muslim merchants were recorded to have roamed Nubia" "Roamed" is a bit of an odd word in this context. Any chance of rewording?
Done.
Annotations
edit
  • a. "(like for example Berta)" Delete like.
Fixed.
  • b. "common, though of course not universal, in Omdurman, the Gezira and Kordofan" Could you put a cite immediately after this quote.
Fixed.
  • b. "In 1927 it was written that along the White Nile" If you mean that this happened in 1927, you should say 'recorded', not "written".
Fixed.
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Right, bearing in mind your deadline of 17th I will start going back through this before you have finished addressing the issues above. There are three queries above on ongoing points. My comments in agriculture, trade and annotations above. The three new points below. Plus we need to sort out the 'Nubian issue', but we can leave that until we have the bitty stuff sorted.

  • The infobox image (map) needs alt text.
How do I implement it? Tried "alt_map" and "alt_map_caption", doesn't work.
That was tricky. I did it while I was researching it.
  • "Beduin" My understanding is that that is an archaic usage. In any event, you need to be consistent. Pick one of beduin or Bedouin. Note my point above: 'The way that the text switches between "Arab", "Bedouin" and "Beduin" is confusing. If they are synonyms, it would be best to chose one and be consistent.'
A Bedouin is a nomadic Arab. I sometimes use "Arab" so I don't have to use "Bedouin" (or in this case, "Beduin") all the time.
  • "with 150 lordships residing on both sides of the Nile." If this means what I think it might, it may be better expressed as 'with 150 independent lordships existing, controlling much of both sides of the Nile.' or similar.
Done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Looks good. Assuming that you sort out the Beduin/Bedouin issue then we are nearly there. I will give it a day or two and then read through the whole thing with fresh eyes. I will quite possibly pick up some fresh points, but maybe not, and I will try to come back to you with a coherent idea of what I think the article needs on Nubia/Nubian. You have worked hard on this, and been both prompt and responsive. As a reviewer I appreciate that. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already added an explanation for what Nubia is:

"Alodia was located in Nubia, a region which, in the middle ages, extended from Aswan in southern Egypt to an undetermined point south of the confuence of the White and Blue Nile rivers.[17]" -Alodia#Geography

I also just added a specification for "Nubians": "By the early 4th century the kingdom of Kush, which used to control much of Sudan's riverbanks, was in decline, and Nubians (speakers of Nubian languages) began to settle in the Nile Valley.[37"-Alodia#Origins

Those look as if they should do the trick. I will try to get my read through done tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrapping up
edit
  • Lead: "Alodia, a wide, multicultural state," What does "wide" mean here? It looks as if a word is missing. (Or do you mean 'large'?)
Fixed.
  • Sources: "Parts of this site were unearthed in the early 1950s and again in the 1980s and 1990s." This reads as if it were the same parts each time. Possibly 'Parts of this site were unearthed in the early 1950s with further excavations in the 1980s and 1990s' or similar?
Ok.
  • Decline: "overrun by Beduin tribes"
What's wrong with that? The term "overrun"? That's how it's formulated in Hasan 1967 as well.
Oops. I forgot to type my comment in. Sorry. Nothing is wrong with it. I wanted to point out that it was the single example of beduin or Bedouin you hadn't changed to "Arab". In my view it would be more comprehensible to a reader if "beduin" were swapped for 'Arab', but I can live with it as it is. Your choice.
  • Throughout: You sometimes write "Upper Nile", sometimes "upper Nile. Could you pick one and standardise. (Ditto "Upper Blue Nile" etc.)
Done.
  • "The people did not oppose him, but prostrated themselves before him." This still does not make sense and needs rewording in some way.
Better?
  • Languages: Images should not 'sandwich' the text - MOS:SANDWICH.
Fixed.
  • Trade: "Muslim merchants were recorded to traverse Nubia" This is not grammatical. If you want to use traverse then perhaps 'Muslim merchants were recorded as having traversed Nubia' or similar? Or perhaps 'Muslim merchants were recorded as having traded in Nubia', or 'Muslim merchants were recorded as having travelled in Nubia'?
Picked choice 1.

I have boldly made a couple of copy edits. I would be grateful if you could check that you are ok with them.

Looks good.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a solid article now, which I am happy to support for FA. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very interesting, but since the article will probably change a bit after a copy edit, I will wait for that to happen before I review. In the meantime, there are a lot of duplinks, which you can highlight with this script:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: @Gog the Mild: @Attar-Aram syria: Almost one month passed, still no copy edit from the GCE. There have been several minor copy edits though. Maybe you guys could point out which sentences in particular could need a prose fix, so I can take care of them myself? LeGabrie (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's now number five in the list, so you should see some action soon. Its been a slow month because the GOCE drive was on. Plus it is the sort of article I would probably have picked up, but I haven't, otherwise I would have to recuse myself from this assessment. For FA you really need an independent eye. I will do the copy edit if you want, but I won't then be able to support here. It will be done soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems to be very close to the top of the list now. In the meantime, you could fix those duplinks I mentioned, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Could you perhaps do that script thing? I don't know anything about that type of stuff. LeGabrie (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is very easy, you just cut and paste the code as described. And it will be very useful for your future editing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well ok, that was actually easy. Deleted all duplicate links which did not appear in the lede already. LeGabrie (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

edit
  • I will review soon, some preliminary comments below while waiting for the copy edit (also so the FAC coordinators can see this page is still active). FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is approximately 2,75 km2 in size" You should convert all measurements.
Added imperial numbers.
  • The Abdallab drawing seems very marginally relevant (from reading the caption) to the very image heavy section. Though it seems to have been created specifically for this article, I wonder if it is more useful elsewhere?
Well, the section is about the supposed ancestor of the Abdallab, so it's kinda relevant.
  • "In contrast to the White Nile Valley the Blue Nile Valley" You could need a comma after White Nile Valley.
Fixed.
  • "The southernmost Alodian sites have been noted in the proximity of Sennar." I'm not sure what this means. "Noted to be in proximity to"?
Are you sure that it's not "in the proximity of"? LeGabrie (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you need "to be" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done.
  • "Kordofanian; various Eastern Sudanic languages spoken in the Upper Blue Nile Valley such as Berta; Beja; Arabic[1] and Tigre[2]" This seems puzzling, several of thsoe don't even belong in the same language families? And the Kordofanian article doesn't mention all those languages.
Reading it again, I see it is maybe just confusingly written. I think you could make it clearer that the last languages mentioned are not part of the former group.
Better?
It still seems like you are grouping them together under the term Kordofania or as Eastern Sudanic languages, perhaps say "as well as Beja; Arabic[1] and Tigre" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added "(like for example Berta)" to make it clear that the following languages do not belong to said Eastern Sudanic languages. I now swapped "Beja" with "Arabic", people should know that Arabic is Semitic.
@FunkMonk and Gog the Mild: Copy edit is done. LeGabrie (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good - you got the A team. I shall get on to it over the next couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it anything about the pre-Christian religion of the population known?
We have no written records from that period and only very limited archaeological evidence. All we can say with certainty is that the old Kushite religion was not maintained, as most Kushite temples went into disuse. Added the latter information.
  • You don't present all the people mentioned. Some are said to be historians or travellers, others get nothing. Should be consistent.
Should be now.
  • " who is known from a Greek tombstone in Soba" What is meant by "Greek tombstone"? That it was written in Greek? Could be clarified.
Fixed.
  • "By 1276 al-Abwab, previously described as the northernmost Alodian province, was recorded as an independent splinter kingdom" Why not link the name at first mention, instead of now at the end of the sentence where it is an WP:Easter egg link?
Because at the first mention I am still talking about al-Abwab as Alodian province, not the splinter kingdom.
  • "Based on pottery finds it has been suggested that it continued to thrive until the 15th and perhaps even the 16th century." What is referred to here, Alodia or al-Abwab?
Al-Abwab.
Could it be clarified in the text? FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Done. Also added wiki links for captions. LeGabrie (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • that caused the "flood gates" to "burst wide open", in text direct quotes like this should be attributed to the authors.
Doné
  • "a history of the Funj Sultanate compiled in the 19th century" By who?
Several authors. Added that.
  • You could give a date in the caption of the Funj image, like you do with the Arab horseman. Also, that image[3] could benefit form a proper infobox on Commons.
Done.
  • "The Nubian language was spoken in central Sudan until the 19th century, when it was replaced by Arabic.[120] It contained many words of Nubian origin" Not sure what this means. Seems self evident the Nubian language would have words of Nubian origin, or is there some distinction that isn't made clear here?
Copy editor messed that one up. Fixed.
  • "in the 17th century, a Sudanese prophecy mentioned a church in the Nuba Mountains" By who?
Added name
  • "Apotropaic rituals stemming from Christian practices outlived the conversion to Islam[132] and remained in use well into the 20th century." I see there is a long footnote about this, but I think it is interesting/significant enough that some of it could be discussed there in the article body.
Done.
  • "the new capital of the recently colonized Sudan" I think you could state who did the colonising.
Done.
  • "Because of their speed horses" I think there could be a comma after "speed".
Done.
  • You should check the image captions for terms to link, I see a bunch missing.
Didn't link to terms already linked in the main text.
Captions are treated separately, though so they should get links. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ultimately resulting in the modern day Sudanese Arab identity" This should be expanded upon outside the intro, as the intro should not have unique info.
Deleted that part from the lede.

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • I get error messages for the Hesse and Drzewiecki sources. They do not appear to be cited.
Hid them
  • "ancient kingdom of Kush in around 350" I would suggest adding "AD" to this first date, particularly as you do use AD twice below.
Fixed.
  • "when records show it controlled" I would prefer "when records show that it controlled", but other editors might disagree.
Fixed.
  • "A powerful king and provincial governors appointed by him" This is ambiguous whether it refers to Alodia or Makuria. I would say "A powerful king of Aludia and provincial governors appointed by him".
Fixed.
  • "The 14th century saw the arrival of both the plague and Beduin". The main text says "might have ravaged Nubia in the mid-14th century killing many sedentary Nubians, but did not affecting the nomadic Arabs". This is far less definite and sounds like speculation that the Black Death reached Alodia but did not affect nomads. You should make clear that this is surmise and I am not sure it is worth mentioning.
Rephrased.
  • The main text above is ungrammatical.
Fixed.
  • Is there a reason that you say Beduin instead of the more usual Bedouin?
That's how it's written in American English (I think)
  • "By around 1500 Soba had fallen to either Arabs or the Funj." Not to Bedouin? Then why mention them?
I use "Beduins" and "Arabs" interchangeably.
  • "a fertile plain bounded by the White and Blue Nile rivers" I think it would be helpful in understanding the geographical statements below to say the White Nile to the west and Blue to the east.
Fixed.
  • The geography section is difficult to follow without a map showing the locations mentioned, although I realise that getting a map can be very difficult.
The map in the infobox will have to do the job.
  • "By the 4th century the kingdom of Kush, which used to control much of Sudan's riverbanks, was in decline" As you say below it ceased to exist by the mid-century, I think it would be better to say in decline by the early 4th century AD.
Even if the source only says "4th century"?
  • If Kush ceased to exist by the mid 4th century then it is confusing to say that it declined by the 4th century. I would delete.
Added "early".

Dudley Miles (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No native or imported pottery or glassware postdating the 13th century could be identified at Soba." This presumably means no pottery so "native or imported" is superfluous.
Fixed.
  • "Two churches were apparently destroyed during the 13th century, although they were later rebuilt." Is it known when they were rebuilt?
Since no pottery post-dating the 13th century is known it must have happened still in the 13th century.
  • Al-Maghrebi and al-Harrani. You should give the full name on the first (or only) mention.
Done.
  • overcultivation. I would find a suitable article to link to or delete the red link.
As you wish.
  • " it was likely comparable to that of Makuria". I think similar would be a better word than comparable.
Fixed.
  • "which was ruled by an appointed arabophone". What is an arabophone?
Someone who speaks Arabic.
  • "where it is written with surprisingly correct grammar" I would delete "surprisingly" as POV.
Replaced with "quite".
  • The type of christianity practised in Alodia is an important omission in the article. It was obviously Oriental Orthodoxy, as shown in the statement that "Nubian church architecture was greatly influenced by that of Egypt, Syria and Armenia" and that the Alodian church was under the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Is this not discussed by the sources?
There is also this: "State and church were closely intertwined in Alodia,[149] with the Alodian kings probably serving as its patrons.[150] Coptic documents observed by Johann Michael Vansleb during the later 17th century list the following bishoprics in the Alodian kingdom: Arodias, Borra, Gargara, Martin, Banazi, and Menkesa.[151] Arodias might have referred to the bishopric in Soba.[149] The bishops were dependent on the patriarch of Alexandria.[3]"

Dudley Miles (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk and Dudley Miles: I have two days left. Please check if you want to address anything else. LeGabrie (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come back late but there are a few points arising from the nominator's replies to my comments. 1. The main one is that the nominator says that he uses Arab and Beduin interchangeably. As there are many non-Beduin Arabs this is likely to confuse the reader and I suggest changing all uses of Arab to Beduin. 2. Arabaphone is a very unusual word. I suggest adding in brackets the definition "Arabic speaking". 3. "Two churches were apparently destroyed during the 13th century, although they were later rebuilt." I think it would be helpful to say that they were rebuilt in the same century.
I would be happy to make the changes myself if this is acceptable to the nominator and it would help. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley Miles. I seem to have been left "article sitting", see the posts currently at the very bottom of the page. I have worked with LeGabrie before on African history articles - assessing for GAN, copy editing for GOCE. And have reviewed this one, see above.
That said, I think that I can speak for the nominator in saying please go ahead with your proposed edits against your points 2 and 3. Re your point 1, I raised the same issue. I think that the nominator has settled on Arab - they gave reasons which I won't go into unless you would rather - with one exception (that I noticed, apologies if you have spotted more). I wasn't wild about that, but as it was literally the last outstanding issue decided not to push it, instead commenting "I wanted to point out that it was the single example of beduin or Bedouin you hadn't changed to "Arab". In my view it would be more comprehensible to a reader if "beduin" were swapped for 'Arab', but I can live with it as it is. Your choice." The lack of change suggests that the nominator would rather leave it, but again I think that I can speak for them in saying please change it if it is a deal breaker for you. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is misleading to use Arab and Bedouin interchangeably. We should follow what the sources do in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have made all the changes. I do not have access to the source cited for references to Beduin but as the book title is The Arabs and the Sudan and the nominator uses the terms interchangeably I have assumed that it is reasonable to change all six "Beduins" (including one in the map jpg description) to "Arabs". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

@LeGabrie: This looks to need a source review still, and a spot-check for verifiability and close paraphrasing. I've requested it. --Laser brain (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I won't be able to participate in that review though, I am taking a break. LeGabrie (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK—does that mean you are withdrawing the nomination? It can't be promoted without those reviews and you would need to participate as the nominator. --Laser brain (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: If I renominate the article does it have to be reviewed all over again, by different reviewers? LeGabrie (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in as Laser brain's fellow coord, the new nom would start from scratch but it would be fine, even expected, for you to ping those who participated in this one, inviting them to re-review (which, if there have been few changes since they looked previously, would not be onerous). That said, how long is your planned break? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Most likely a couple of months. Perhaps I might be able to post short one-liners from time to time, but nothing more. A source review probably requires a bit more than that, I would imagine. LeGabrie (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay tks LeGabrie -- that makes the decision easy, I just wanted to check we weren't talking only a week or so. Let's treat this nom as withdrawn then, and when you get back you can renominate and ping the previous reviewers inviting them to stop by, so the new nom has an opportunity to hit the ground running. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and Laser brain: Would it be possible, if LeGebrie is agreeable, for another editor, eg me, to step in and field any queries arising from the source review? I assessed this at GAN and put in a fair bit of work above reviewing it as a FAC; it would be a shame not to see it over the line. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind. Thanks for the offer and see ya. LeGabrie (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Gog -- as the nominator is okay with that, so am I if Laser brain is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I will take a look at the sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Earwigs copyvio is clear
  • FN #211 - used once, faithful to source.
  • FN #41 - used once, faithful to source (gawd Hatke is hard to read at times!!)
  • FN #36 - used once, faithful to source
  • FN #37 - used once, faithful to source
  • FN #38 - used once, faithful to source
  • I can't see Welsby's texts directly but can see he has discussed the kingdom and Soba
  • only formatting issue was the isbn spacing, which I have fixed.

Hence I am happy with the sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well this has certainly been a team effort, thanks and well done all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2018 (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/Alodia/archive2&oldid=874987935"