Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Baghdad/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 September 2024 [1].

Siege of Baghdad

edit
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege of Baghdad shook the world. The end of the Abbasid Caliphate, the zenith of the Mongol conquests, the foundation of a new empire in the Middle East. Legends sprang up around the siege, and it became a byword for wanton destruction—but was it?

This article passed a GA nomination from sawyer777 earlier this year, and I now bring its nomination to FAC. If successful, it will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

edit

I'll have a look at this. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. Steelkamp (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • Could Persia be linked in the lead and body?
    • Done.
  • What variety of English is being used? I see "utilised" rather than "utilized", but "centers" rather than "centres" and "vassalize" rather than "vassalise".
    • Should be standardised to BrE now, which allows both -ise and -ize in many cases, I believe.
      • I take it you are using Oxford spelling. "centers" and "epicenter" still need to be changed to "centres" and "epicentre".
        • Done.
  • "...in the words of Justin Marozzi." How about "...in the words of English historian Justin Marozzi." to tell the readers who he is.
  • "In that year Chormaqan..." Suggest to add a comma: "In that year, Chormaqan..."
    • Done both.
  • "Hulegu's progress from Karakorum was extremely leisurely by Mongol standards." Suggest to change to "Hulegu's progress from Karakorum was slow by Mongol standards." Leisurely feels too imprecise. It wasn't literally leisurely was it?
    • Yes, it was. done in a relaxed way, without hurrying. There was feasting, hunting, diplomatic negotations, more banquets, etc. It took almost three years to travel from Mongolia to Persia, a journey which could have been made in a number of months.
  • 19 November." Can a year be added to that date?
    • Added.
  • "...while Gerdkuh held out for fifteen years, only falling in 1271." Is this part relevant to the siege of Baghdad, seeing as it take place over a decade after the event.

Baghdad campaign

  • "...and so he refused." Suggest changing to "...so he refused."
    • I think that works less well.
  • "...meaning Baghdad was in a difficult position..." Suggest changing to "...placing Baghdad in a difficult position..."
    • Adjusted.
  • "...who had been occupied with troubles to the northwest." What kind of troubles?
    • Defined.
  • "...this was just "provocative bluster"..." Who is saying this quote. I don't think this should be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
    • Rephrased.
  • "The assault on Baghdad's flood-weakened walls..." I think the flood-weakened walls should be mentioned in the above paragraph at "the walls were in disrepair".
    • Moved.
  • "According to Kirakos Gandzaketsi, an Armenian historian..." Suggest changing to "According to Kirakos Gandzaketsi, a 13th-century Armenian historian..."
    • Good idea.

Legacy

  • No comments.

Those are all my comments for now. Steelkamp (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Steelkamp. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck though the comments that have been addressed. There is one left which I think you have missed. I would like to do a second read-through of the whole article before deciding to support. Steelkamp (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that Steelkamp, the article should be ready for your second readthrough now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steelkamp, any further comments? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm feeling a bit out of my depth in reviewing this article. I have a feeling that the "background" section is a bit too long, but don't have any concrete suggestions on what to cut. I also feel that some of the language used is not accessible to a wide audience. I'm giving a support, but I encourage you to take those comments on board. Steelkamp (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'll take a look at what you've said. Thanks for your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Matarisvan

edit

My comments:

  • In the lead, "prince" does not need to be linked, doing so is creating SEAOFBLUE.
    • Adjusted.
  • "near to": remove the "to" from both instances in the article?
    • Done
  • "Assassins": add a apostrophe after since we have a possessive noun, or change to just "Assassin"?
    • Added an apostrophe; the Assassins were never referred to in the singular.
  • "ordered him put to death": rephrase to "ordered him to be put to death"? Though former may be grammatically correct, latter flows much better.
    • I disagree; I find the latter excessively wordy.
  • "were still quite delusional": Is this per the sources? Otherwise, "delusional" seems too strong a word for Wiki since we have to be neutral. Atwood 2004 uses "unrealistic" which is quite better.
    • I think "delusional" is somwhat tame—al-Musta'sim has been described by sources as "pathologically avaricious", "in a state of mental imbecility", "extremely reckless", "weak, vain, incompetent and cowardly", and "utterly lumpen and uncontrolled".
  • "Seljuk, Georgian, and Armenian vassals": link "Georgian" to Kingdom of Georgia, since we haven't linked to it in the article at all even though we have the corresponding categories?
    • Done.
  • "disrespectful behaviour towards Hulegu's envoys": Any details which can be added to the article?
    • Added a phrase.
  • "Baiju returned to the vanguard at Irbil": Our last mention of Baiju says he had rejoined Hulegu at Hamadan. Where was he in the interim between Hamadan and Irbil, was he not with the main army?
    • Yes, he rejoined Hulegu and the main army at Hamadan, where they decided to attack Baghdad, and then he rode back to the vanguard, which he commanded, which had remained at Irbil.
  • Link to Karkh?
    • Done.
  • Translate daruyachi as admin officers per NOFORCELINK?
    • Provided.
  • "by the Ottomans in 1534,": the comma is not necessary, consider removing?
    • Done.
  • Provide 26673137 as the JSTOR ID for Biran 2019? I can't remember the exact MOS but I read that the policy is to provide multiple access options for sources.
    • Done.
  • Consider removing the second link to JA Boyle in Boyle 1968? It does not serve any purpose as far as I can tell.
  • Have you read this recent article by Brack, Biran and Amitai: [2]? It questions the occurrence of a plague during the siege. I have not read it yet but if you do read it before I can, please let me know if it can be used here.
    • I had not; it seems to not question the occurrence of a plague, but rather the plague i.e. the disease caused by the Yersinia pestis bacterium. I have added a half-sentence citing it in the article.
  • Link to Cambridge University Press as done for other publishers?
  • Add 10.2307/3632138 as the DOI and 3632138 as the JSTOR ID for Smith 1975?
    • That is essentially the same link three times, but done.

That's all from me on the text. A great article overall, with more details than I expected would have been extant. Matarisvan (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

AirshipJungleman29, here goes:

  • All sources are from reliable publishers and authors.
  • Add 10.12987/yale/9780300125337.001.0001 as the DOI for Jackson 2017?
    • Book, DOI not needed.
  • Add 10.1515/9781474417402 as the DOI for May 2018? ISBNs are different in both this one and the above one but I don't think that would affect the content.
    • Book, DOI not needed.
  • #1: need exact quotations.
    • It's a summary of two chapters; I cannot quote all of them.
  • #4: ok.
  • #8: Is p. 263 the right one for Atwood 2004? That page has details on the history of Japan and Mongolia/the Mongol Empire. Also need the quotation from May 2018, accessing it is tough.
    • Was meant to be p. 363. May: "Thus in 1251 Mongke became Qa’an of the Mongol Empire and began the Toluid revolution. While the transition of the position of Qa’an from the house of Ogodei to the house of Tolui..."
  • #18: ok.
  • #23: Jackson 2017 and Boyle 1968 ok. Need exact quotation for Lane 2003.
  • #38: ok.
  • #41: Jackson 2017 is ok, need quotation from Chambers 1979.
    • "believing that they would be allowed to retire into Syria, [the soldiers of the garrison] marched out unarmed, only to be divided into companies and slaughtered."
  • #45 and #56: ok.
  • #53 needs page numbers for Chambers 1979.
    • Fixed a sfn mistake.
  • Add 10.1163/9789004192119 as the DOI and 10.1163/j.ctt1w8h10n as the JSTOR ID for Bai︠a︡rsaĭkhan 2011? The latter is open access.
    • Book, DOI not needed. Added JSTOR.
  • Add 10.1163/9789004314726_008 as the DOI for Biran 2016?
    • Book, DOI not needed.
  • Add 10.2307/j.ctv125jrx5.7 as the DOI and j.ctv125jrx5.7 as the JSTOR ID for Hodous 2020?
    • Book, DOI not needed. Added JSTOR
  • Add 10.4324/9780203417874 as the DOI for Lane 2003?
    • Book, DOI not needed.
  • Add 10.4324/9781315165172 as the DOI for Lane 2022?
    • Book, DOI not needed.

Mostly ok just needs the above changes and quotations. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Responses above Matarisvan. My general position is that citations to books don't need DOIs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but it's always a good idea to give readers multiple options for accessing a source. DOIs are not required per FA criteria but it does not hurt to have them. You should get comments from other reviewers on this and see what they have to say. Matarisvan (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you note, they are not required by the FA criteria. What the FA criteria do require are consistently formatted citations, which would not be present if those to certain books contain DOIs and those to other books do not. In any case, DOIs for books are created by adding the code of the publisher to the ISBN, meaning they essentially duplicate what is already in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The source review is a pass then. I would appreciate it if you could comment at a PR I have running, linked here, your comments would be very helpful for improving that article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

edit
I'll be back soonish, had to wrap up some other things. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link dawatdar in image caption.
    • Done.
  • Not your "fault", but a bit weird that Talisman Gate links to a Commons page, it should really have its own article here...
  • "This incident is likely the source of a folktale, reproduced in the writings of Christian writers such as Marco Polo" What is the significance of mentioning religion? Does it mean Western writers instead?
    • No, "Christian" is specifically highlighted by Jackson 2017, who provides a list: "It clearly held a ready appeal for Christian writers, since variants are supplied by authors as diverse as the Byzantine historian Georgios Pachymeres (d. c. 1310), the Armenian historian Grigor Aknerts‛i (c. 1313), the expatriate Armenian prince Hayton of Gorighos (1307), the anonymous ‘Templar of Tyre’ (c. 1314), the Venetian adventurer Marco Polo (1298), the Dominican missionary Riccoldo da Montecroce (c. 1300) and St Louis’ biographer Jean de Joinville (1309)."
  • You could also give dates in the captions of the last two images as you do for the others, for context (show they're not contemporary with the events).
    • Good idea, done.
  • "Having granted the palace to Makkikha to be the Christians' church" A bit hard to understand. Why specific, and not "a church"? And doesn't "church" already imply it's "Christian"?
    • Simplified to "a church".
  • There's a lot of mention of what religion certain people or factions belong to, which is good for context, but it leaves me wondering about the religion of the Mongols at this time, since one talked about "god", another had a Christian wife, etc. Perhaps it can be added somewhere whether they were still pagan or were starting to adopt Islam or what was going on, and what it meant for their conquests?
    • Very hard to summarize in an article like this, because the Mongols' concept of religion was very different from our own, and the modern world would consider them very religiously diverse—the royal family contained shamanists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims. Later, the religious differences would grow more stark, but that would be at least a decade away. Religion had no real impact on this campaign as it was going on—its importance was increased in retrospect.
  • Similarly, the legacy section describes this as a blow to the Islamic world, but it appears the Mongols didn't try to weaken the hold of the religion? Wasn't it rather just weakening of Arab dominance of it (as later rulers were still Muslims, just of non-Arab ethnicities)?
    • No, the legacy says it was a "momentous occasion"—I have specified that it was the end of the caliphate that made it so.
  • "transported either to Mongke" Is this a place or Möngke Khan? Could be specified either way, and if the latter, needs an umlaut.
    • Specified.
  • Link Mongol campaign against the Nizaris in the article body like you do in the intro?

Comments from Shushugah

edit
  • In an article about Islam use MOS:BCE instead of BC/AD (where it says Baghdad was founded in 762 AD and early 1258)
  • repercussions -> ramifications
    • Probably better, yes.
  • Date range inside Infobox does not match body of article. Should it be 17 January – 10 February 1258?
    • No, 17 January was the date of a battle to the north of the city, not the start of the actual siege.
      • Ah I see why I didn't find 29 January, because there's 30 January possibility too. The infobox refers to Siege with date range, while body refers to assault. Either modify body or the infobox to make it clear they're referring to same thing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand what "Either modify body or the infobox to make it clear they're referring to same thing." means Shushugah. I've added "/30" to the infobox if that's what you meant? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I would understand "assault" to be interchangeable with battle, but according to your explanation, the assault on 29/30 January is the beginning of the siege, while on 17 January was an unrelated battle. Infobox title refers to siege and includes a date range, without explicitly clarifying what this date range refers to. I do not have a specific solution in mind, but was and am still confused when reading it, so clarifying what is being referred to would help other readers. Perhaps I am not familiar with WP:MILHIST terminology, but neither are most readers ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          The infobox is titled "Siege of Baghdad". As such, the information therein is about the siege of Baghdad, not about the events leading up to it.
          The lead section states: "the Mongol army soon approached Baghdad, routing a sortie on 17 January 1258 by flooding their camp. They then invested Baghdad, which was left with around 30,000 troops. The assault began at the end of January. This, chronologically, defines the 17 January battle as a sortie, notes they surrounded Baghdad, and states they began their assault at the end of the month. I don't know how "assault" could be interpreted as referring to the battle on 17 January—that seems counterintuitive.
          The body, meanwhile, does essentially the same over three paragraphs, and even says "The assault on Baghdad's walls" to reduce confusion. I honestly don't see where the lack of clarity is. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • proclaimed khan -> what does this mean? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shushugah, just a courtesy check to see if there is any more to come from you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 last series of nitpicks:
  • My knowledge of geography/kingdoms at the time is limited, but what is the relation of historic Persia to Azerbaijan (toponym)? I appreciate that sometimes the territory/region changed, but it's hard to tell during the travels whether these are different countries by geography or time.
  • Wiki link first mention of Caliph even though it's implied from Abbasid Caliphate
  • Replace comma here with a fullstop. escape the increasingly putrid air,
  • Wiki link or explanation of Sacked is. Perhaps looting? It is mentioned 6x including the very first lede, so seems important term for warfare but I am unfamiliar with it. Similar to how invest is wiki linked. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very extensive and focused article. I have not done a source review so AGF. I found it a challenge to follow what empires/political configurations of each city/country was at the time, but that's not German to the article which is about the siege. I have made some last nitpicks, but accepted or not, they are not blockers for my support. Thank you for creating a FA article ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Drive-by comment

edit


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/Siege_of_Baghdad/archive1&oldid=1246279475"