Talk:Qarmatian invasion of Iraq

Qarmatian invasion of Iraq has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 20, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Qarmatian invasion of Iraq appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 May 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that during the Qarmatian invasion of Iraq, the Abbasid Caliphate raised an army of more than 40,000 men to protect Baghdad, but did not engage the few thousand Qarmatians in battle?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Qarmatian invasion of Iraq.

Wikipedia

Military history: Middle East / Medieval / Early Muslim

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Iraq Mid‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arab world Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Western Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam: Muslim history Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Muslim history task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Qarmatian invasion of Iraq/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 20:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin this review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that the Qarmatians were Shia and that other Shia sympathizers flocked to Bahrayn. I think you need to also mention that the Abbasids were Sunni to better contextualize the conflict between the two.
- Done, but caveat: in 900, calling the Abbasids 'Sunni' is not entirely correct. As the article mentions, there were several Shi'a sympathizers in high posts in the Abbasid government, and even some caliphs toyed with Shi'a sympathies. Sunnism did not really coalesce until the Sunni Revival in the 11th century.
for 7 days → for seven days per MOS:NUMERAL
- Done.
"to confront the Qarmatian menace" - reword this
- Why? What is the problem?

I feel like the wording is non neutral in this case.--Catlemur (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the heels of their victory at Kufa - MOS:IDIOM
- Rephrased.
Wikilink: baggage train, chamberlain.--Catlemur (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catlemur, I've dealt with most of the issues above. Please have a look. Apart from the one unclear point above, is there anything else? Constantine ✍ 18:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I apologize. I got really busy IRL.--Catlemur (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur: No worries, take your time. Constantine ✍ 18:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur: a small reminder. Constantine ✍ 11:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I moved to a new place and got screwed over by the telecom company, got internet yesterday. I will finish the review in the coming days.--Catlemur (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur: Oh wow, sorry to hear that. Please don't stress yourself on my account, I just wanted to know if you're still on it. Best of luck with everything! Constantine ✍ 15:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an inconsistent Engvar is the article, I assume you are going for British English. That means that the following alterations must be made:

stabilizing→stabilising sympathizer→sympathiser mobilize→mobilise mobilization→mobilisation recognized→recognised

The wikilink "fighting in the desert plains" to desert warfare.Catlemur (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Catlemur: I am indeed going for British English, but contrary to common belief, '-ize' is perfectly acceptable in British English. On the link to desert warfare, as the article mostly concerns modern warfare, I don't think it is appropriate (and it is a poor article at that). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Catlemur (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that during the Qarmatian invasion of Iraq, the Abbasid Caliphate raised an army of over 40,000 men to protect Baghdad, but did not engage the few thousand Qarmatians in battle? Source: Summary of section 2.2
- ALT1: ~~... that during the Qarmatian invasion of Iraq in 927–928, the Qarmatians of Bahrayn captured Kufa, threatened Baghdad, and reached Raqqa?~~ Source: Summary of section 2
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mariam Soulakiotis

Improved to Good Article status by Cplakidas (talk). Self-nominated at 18:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting: - I'm not convinced ALT1 meets this requirement, but ALT0 looks ok.

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Nice article (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]