Talk:Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 21:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Cplakidas, I will begin a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Cplakidas, I've completed my review of your article, and I find that it meets the majority of criteria for passage to Good Article status. I do, however, have a few nitpicking comments and suggestions that need to be addressed before proceeding. Once each of these have been dealt with, I'll feel more than comfortable passing this phenomenal article on to Good Article status. Please let me know if I've misunderstood anything. Overall, you've written a fantastic article, and pulled together a very thorough and well-written narrative of Ibn Tughj's life. Thank you for your hard work and your patience throughout this review process. -- Caponer (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• In the first sentence, I suggest the following rewording for better sentence flow: "...better known as al-Ikhshīd (Arabic: آلإخشي‎) after 939,"?
• In the second paragraph, I suggest mentioning his father Tughj ibn Juff by name, which will be especially helpful once his article is written.
• I suggest removing "the" before vizier al-Abbas ibn al-Hasan al-Jarjara'i, and perhaps even before Abbasid governor of Egypt.
  • Hmmm, I rather disagree. Apart from titles like king or prince, I think the definite article is warranted. I've reworded the part, though, please have a look.
    • This actually works well!
• Rather than stating "Thanks to these ties,..." which seems a bit Wikipedia:COLLOQUIAL, how about rewording this sentence fragment to "Because/On account of these ties/connections..." or some version thereof.
• Fatimid should only be wiki-linked once within the prose of the lede.
• "giving it a rare period of domestic tranquillity and good government" should probably be re-worded to something like "resulting in a rare period of peace, stability, and effective governance" or something to that effect.
• In the final sentence of the second paragraph, it is mentioned that he received the title al-Ikhshid from the Caliph. Could this Caliph be named in this instance?
• It looks like Wikipedia has made the editorial decision to spell the valley "Fergana Valley." I suggest incorporating this spelling throughout for consistency's sake.
  • Writing it as "Farghana" is a deliberate decision on my part, which reflects the Arabic term. It seems only proper to use Arabic terms when dealing with the period, and also reflects the dominant practice in most modern works on Islamic history.
    • This certainly wasn't a deal breaker, but just a minor suggestion. I'm fine leaving the title of the valley written as is.
• I suggest including Muhammad ibn Ra'iq's full name and writing the years as 939–42, per WP:DATERANGE.
  • The reason I use Ibn Ra'iq throughout is twofold: first, that is indeed how he is most commonly known, and second, there tend to be too many Muhammads in the article, and I'd rather avoid any potential source of confusion. As for the dates, the guideline explicitly allows the full form for three-digit numbers, which is also what I prefer.
    • Certainly understandable. I'm fine with both.
• "Following Ibn Ra'iq's murder, he reimposed his control over northern Syria" should explicitly mention Ibn Tughj here. Also, it should be consistent throughout the prose when naming Ibn Tughj. I noticed sometimes he is mentioned as just Tughj, and sometimes as al-Ikhshid. If he is to be known as al-Ikhshid during the period of his governorship, this should be noted in the prose or in a footnote.
• All content in this section is well-written and verifiably sourced by inline citations below in the prose.

Origin and early life

• This first paragraph, while well-written and sourced, is a bit confusing regarding the names. Ibn Tughj, Tughj, and Juff should be mentioned consistently throughout the prose so that the reader can keep all the characters straight. I'm assuming Muhammad refers to Ibn Tughj during the discussion of his brothers?
  • I've tried to rephrase in order to have consistency and clarity while avoiding having to resort to forms like "Juff's son Tughj ibn Juff", which are ugly. Have a look.
    • This works well!
• Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, try to consolidate inline citations at the end of sentences where possible.
  • I'll keep that in mind as far as possible
• Could the last sentence of the first paragraph be re-written: "Thus Ibn Tughj spent the majority of his youth in the Tulunid Levant, gaining his first experiences in administration as the sub-governor of Tiberias; and in war at his father's side."?
• In the first sentence of the second paragraph, "began" should probably be substituted here.
• Again "the" may not be necessary before vizier.
  • As above.
• Wiki-link Fustat in its first mention in the final paragraph of this section and de-link subsequent uses.
• I suggest stating "...according to historian Jere L. Bacharach,..."
• All content in this section is well-written and verifiably sourced by inline citations.

Takeover of Egypt

• Could the son and successor Muhammad ibn Takin be named explicitly in the first sentence? If that is in fact the same son.
• "bringing Ibn Tughj to heel" strikes me as a bit Wikipedia:COLLOQUIAL. Could this be reworded? "The Caliph then charged Ahmad ibn Kayghalagh with compelling Ibn Tughj to obey his orders," or something to that effect?
• Takin's son Muhammad reappears in the second paragraph, but should he be named as Muhammad ibn Takin in the first mention?
• De-link this mention of Fustat as it should be linked above.
• "Master of the capital" also seems colloquial. How about "With the capital under his control,..." or something similar.
• "Nevertheless on 31 March," vs. "Nevertheless, on 31 March"
• Does Barqa in this usage refer to Cyrenaica? Or Barqa, Gaza in what was then considered Palestine? If it's unknown, we can keep it un-linked, but I was curious.
  • It refers indeed to the Cyrenaica. It had been seized in the first Fatimid invasion and acted as a forward Fatimid base between Ifriqiya and Egypt.
    • I thought so, but I just wanted to be sure. Thanks for your response!
• All content in this section is well-written and verifiably sourced by inline citations.

Government of Egypt

• In the caption, Ibn Tughj is back to al-Ikhshid. Does the coinage literally say "al-Ikhshid" or some variation of "Ibn Tughj"?
  • From this section on, I consistently refer to him by his title, as is the usual practice in the sources: either the full name is cited, or the title (sometimes in English as "the Ikhshid") alone, especially after his conquest of Egypt. I've changed the caption though, so that it can stand alone, and clarified what name appeared on the coins.
    • This works well!
• Could the first sentence of the second paragraph be chopped up? How about this or some version of it instead:

While very little is known about Ibn Tughj's domestic policies, he was apparently successful in restoring internal stability and orderly government in Egypt.
The omission of domestic troubles from sources during his reign—barring a swiftly suppressed minor Shi'ite revolt in 942—was in stark contrast to the usual narrative of Bedouin raids, urban riots over high prices, or military and dynastic revolts and intrigues.

• Would "incorporated into" work better in the next sentence?
  • How exactly? Both Ibn Takin and al-Madhara'i were given a role to play, but the nect sentence is about al-Madhara'i.
    • Upon re-reading, I feel it works fine as is.
• Abu'l-Qasim Unujur's name is mentioned in full in this paragraph, but not in the lede. I'd suggest making this consistent in both mentions here.
• I recommend using Ibn Tughj throughout this section even though his title is al-Ikhshid.
  • See above.
• All content in this section is well-written and verifiably sourced by inline citations.

Foreign policy and the struggle for Syria

• Can the Muhammads and Al-Ikhshids be changed to Ibn Tughj in this section for consistency's sake?
• Should "His conflict with Ahmad ibn Kayghalagh is indicative of his approach" be "was indicative" and should "has been a constant foreign policy objective of any ruler of Egypt" be "had been"?
  • Well, it is indicative for us today, when reviewing his reign, so present tense seems best. For the second, it has always been, and geography dictates that it will continue to be, a constant of Egyptian history: from the Battle of Qadesh to Muhammad Ali of Egypt (and, one would argue, the Arab-Israeli wars), Egypt's foreign policy has always had at its core the question of who controls the Levant. The extension to the modern period may be debatable, which is why I have added the "historically" in front.
• Again per Wikipedia:Inline citation, try to consolidate inline citations at the end of sentences where possible.
• All content in this section is well-written and verifiably sourced by inline citations.

Conflict with Ibn Ra'iq

• Do we know how many Byzantine prisoners Ibn Tughj had to cough up to Romanos I Lekapenos?
  • The exchange was one for one, but on this occasion the Byzantines had a surplus of prisoners (the 800 released later) who had to be ransomed with money. I've rephrased to make this clear.
• Does Ubayd Allah have a longer form name? If so, it should be used in this instance.
  • It would be, as for Muhammad, Ubayd Allah ibn Tughj (ibn etc.). I don't see why it would add anything. I may write a short article on him and link it, however.
• As stated above, I suggest using Ibn Tughj throughout this subsection as with the rest of the prose for consistency.
• All content in this section is well-written and verifiably sourced by inline citations.

Conflict with the Hamdanids

• al-Muti (r. 946–974) should be rendered 946–74 per WP:DATERANGE. This should be done throughout the prose for consistency.
  • Per my reply above. WP:DATERANGE leaves open the possibility of keeping three-digit numbers.
• Ikhshidids is used for the first time here. Since Ibn Tughj is the governor, and therefore the government, should he be mentioned as paying the annual tribute and not his forces?
• Ensure that inline citations are in numerical order throughout the prose.
• All content in this section is well-written and verifiably sourced by inline citations.

Death and legacy

• "Peaceful" may work better here, rather than "tranquil." And "thanks to the influence" should probably be rendered "due to the influence."
• Should Unujur be written as Abu'l-Qasim Unujur here?
• Change "would remain" to "remained"
• I suggest making the prose in the second paragraph past-tense. "Ibn Sa'id reported..." "He was also described as less cultivated..." "he was described by medieval chroniclers..."
• All content in this section is well-written and verifiably sourced by inline citations.

Hello Caponer. Thanks a lot for your kind words, and for the thorough work, especially as intend to bring this to FA if possible. Right now I am glued to my TV watching events back home, so I will have a look tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 21:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Constantine, take your time and please complete at your leisure. I look forward to re-reviewing this article when you're ready. It definitely has the makings of a FAC! -- Caponer (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm beginning to go through your suggestions, although most of the work will be done tomorrow. I'll be striking out those points I've dealt with and leave notes for those where I disagree or there is a specific reason why the text is so. Constantine ✍ 23:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Constantine, thank you for your patience with me throughout this process and for your speedy response to each of my above suggestions, questions, and comments. As always, you've masterfully written a wonderful article, and it is hereby my pleasure to pass this article to Good Article status. I know it will face little opposition as a FAC, and wish you the best of luck! -- Caponer (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you likewise Caponer for a very thorough review, which helps to portray the subject, it being rather obscure and complicated, in a manner that is understandable and engaging to the average reader. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)