The image of Muhammad's family tree that you designed is an image and appears to be against the MOS policy of avoiding textual information in images (MOS:TEXTASIMAGES). I would consider replacing it with the following tree (a version of your work I produced using {{chart}}, which can easily be amended in any way). Amitchell125 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Family tree of Muhammad V, Ismail II, and Muhammad VI
Removed image and added the above family tree (after correcting spelling, adding ref, etc). Thank you for helping with the code! HaEr48 (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: I have produced an English version of the Granada map here, based as much as possible on the current map, but with an accurate coastline, hills depicted and the text arranged where possible to make it easier to read. The map can easily be amended if you see where it needs to be improved. Do you want to use it? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is automatically provided by the template {{lang-ar}}, and it is very commonly used in Wikipedia and the meaning is rather easy to infer, so I'd prefer not changing the template. HaEr48 (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem although it's interesting to note that MOS:ABBR states "Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation."
Where the following sections comment on information provided by Vidal Castro (i.e. his article on Muhammad VI), or Fernández-Puertas, it means I would include the information in the article.
Vidal Castro's "Ismail II" says Ismail was 15 when his father was assassinated, and enthroned when ‘barely twenty’. He provides full details of Ismail ’s death.
Added "barely twenty", but probably his age at Ismail I's death is irrelevant in Muhammad VI's article. Any aspect of Ismail's death other than the below you suggest adding? HaEr48 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...where he was executed. - I would include some or all of the following: "[he was] imprisoned in a criminal dungeon, where he was taken barefoot and without covering his head. Once there, he was executed and his head was cut off and thrown to the people, among whom an individual took it and walked it, carrying it by a braid of his thick hair."
...they scaled the Alhambra's walls… - The astrologer who gave them the best date for the coup is named. That there was a gap in the wall, and that the vizier was killed in front of his family.
Mentioned about the astrologer, although I don't see his name in Vidal Castro. Added about the gap and the killing in front of the family. HaEr48 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fernández-Puertas on p13 says that Ishmail's mother died at the hands of Muhammad. Is this an error?
None of the other sources mentioned this, even though Vidal Castro covers these events surrounding Ismail's death in more detail, and Boloix Gallardo covers Ismail's mother's biographical information in more details, so I am inclined towards not including this (it might be an error). What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...who had controlled substantial amount of wealth… - consider amending to ‘...who had control of a substantial amount of wealth…’.
...during the holy month of Ramadan,... - I would move this to the previous sentence, so that it reads ‘...to carry out a coup on 23 August 1359, during the holy month of Ramadan.’.
Muhammad VI 's policies towards Castile and Aragon were a change from the policies of previous emirs, and that they effected the war between the two countries.
This too: "Muhammad VI stopped the customary practice of paying tribute to Castile, and instead concluding an alliance with its enemy ..." HaEr48 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The October 1390 treat was ratified in February 1361. Vidal Castro provides details about the treaty not given in the article.
The article says ...by threatening to attack Marinid possessions on the Iberian Peninsula. - but it seems the attacks actually happened ("Christian and Merinid ships carried out several attacks on the Nasrid coasts").
I would paraphrase Vidal Castro, who says ‘The murder of Muḥammad VI was such a serious atrocity and treason that Pedro I tried to justify his action before the Court, his advisers and the people - who opposed and lamented the execution …’.
Add ‘so that if there was no guarantee of immunity, there could be no betrayal by Peter.’ (or something similar), when discussing the excuses offered for Muhammad's murder.
Fernández-Puertas on p. 19 says Muhammad V regained the throne on 16 March 1362.
Fernández-Puertas and Vidal Castro give the same Hijri dates for Muhammad VI's flight from the Alhambra and Muhammad V's entrance, but different CE dates, so one of them must be wrong. Because the conversion can be trivially checked (e.g. using this tool [1]) we know that VC's conversion is the correct one. I added a footnote to explain. Btw, a discrepancy by one or two days can happen due to different methods of conversion, but a difference of one month can only be due to a conversion error. HaEr48 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A really interesting article to work on! I'm placing it on hold for a week until 13 September to allow time for the points I have raised to be addressed. I'll check through the article again for any minor issues when we are nearer the end of the review. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Amitchell125 for your thorough feedback, which have resulted in many improvements in the article. I incorporated most of your suggestions, while at the same time trying to avoid unnecessary or undue details. I've responded to all of your points above, and explained when I disagree. Let me know if you have concerns about my responses, or if you have more feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've accepted your points where you have disagreed, although I would perhaps include at least part of the quote I suggested, if only to give this ruler, of which so little is known, a voice. There are couple of comments left to address, but we are nearly there. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125, responded to your remaining point above. As for the quote, I completely agree with you that it will add a much-needed voice, but the problem is it's very long (8 lines in the paper, though maybe in Wikipedia it can be less) and I can't think of a good way to cut it to, for example, under 50% of the original length, without losing the context. If you have an idea I am all ears. HaEr48 (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HaEr48 Consider replacing Ibn al-Khatib quoted that the chief of police (sahib al-shurta) of Granada as saying that the Sultan was once addicted to hashish, and by mentioning the places he had frequented Muhammad VI helped the police uncover illegal hashish rings. with this (or something similar): According to Ibn al-Khatib, he had an hashish addition. On being informed by his sahib-al-shurta (chief of police) that his people had abandoned all their vices, Muhammad enquired, “And the hashish, what about that?” and was told none had been found. He answered, “I would that were so! But go to the house of So-and-so and So-and-so ….” and then provided the addresses of all those whose gatherings he had previously attended.' Amitchell125 (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passing now, pending a last check through for punctuation, etc. I'll leave the decision about the quote up to you. Thank you for your part in the review—a very enjoyable process, as before—and congratulations on producing a high quality article.Amitchell125 (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources): 
