Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Siege of Damascus (634)/1

Siege of Damascus (634) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Unfortunately no one has stepped forward to address the concerns or ask for more time. AIRcorn (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that this article is tagged with several CN and clarification needed, the dates in the article are disputable. The dispute is noted but I cannot be sure the article is giving weight to the most reliable sources when it comes to the time period of the siege. This Appendix #21 has an analysis of the chronology, but interpreting it is beyond my expertise and I am not even sure if it is the best source. Maybe the dates in this source come from the best sources. Maybe they do not. Please reassess this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That "Appendix 21" is the work of J.B. Bury, who is a reliable, albeit dated, source for the Byzantine period. I know there are more recent works with chronologies that could be used, though. -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch writes

There are a few points missing in this article I would expect to find:

In the lead, the individual who betrayed the city is described as a "bishop"; in the relevant section, he is said to have been a priest who later converted to Islam. Which is right?
This article focuses too much on the military angle, & none on the social history. This overlooks a strong motivation for the fall of Damascus: by this point the Byzantine authorities had been persecuting the local Monophysite Christians for generations, so there was little love between the civilians & the military. Had Jonah not betrayed the garrison, another citizen of Damascus likely would have.
IMHO, too much reliance is put on Gibbon who wrote in the late 18th century. (He can & should be quoted for opinion, of course.) More use should be made of contemporary experts on this period -- there are many, & they not only have better access to the historical records than Gibbon had, they are more likely to access the archeological findings & have visited the scene of the battle.

I'll note that any revision of this article will be hampered by the fact most public libraries are either closed or offering reduced services due to the pandemic. If someone wants to tackle these criticisms, they should be given more time than usual. -- llywrch (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]