Talk:Siege of Mecca (692)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this one. Give me a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gog the Mild. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This could do with a copy edit. Are you ok for me to do this? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure, you don't need to ask ;) Article is Wikipedia's, not mine :D AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mecca-1850.jpg needs a US PD tag. It is PD, the home page just needs to explicitly state this.

Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the second image, can we Wikilink hatīm to Hajr Ismail and give it a capital H.

Great, I didn't know article on hatim existed

Now linked, but didn't capitalize since sources also don't. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation: That doesn't matter. Wikipedia policy is to capitalise all proper nouns, which this is, just like Ka'aba or Black Stone.

Alright, ~~will capitalize then~~ done. I normally try to follow source convention, except in diacritical marks ;). AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the bold copy edits I have made. If you don't like any, or feel that I have got the facts wrong, please flag that up here. Thanks.

No, they are helpful. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the sacred black stone burst apart" Would it be accurate, and/or more useful, to say something like "the sacred black stone was smashed into pieces after being struck by a catapult missile"?

It just burst into four pieces; "smashed into pieces" gives an impression of breaking into many fragments, and also that breaking was result of an impact. It was because of fire, AFAIK. Will look further into this over the weekend. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it broke into four pieces, it would be better to say that and not use either "burst" or "smashed". I have a not very reliable source which strongly suggests that it was struck by a stone from a catapult during this siege, but let's see what your more reliable one says.

EI2 article on Kaaba (Vol. 4, p.319) says fire split it into three pieces. Changed it accordingly. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Yazid died in November that year and the arrival of this news compelled Husayn ibn Numayr, the commander of the besieging army, to withdraw." It is not clear why Yazid's death should have this effect.

Added. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs: you need to standardise on one form of hyphening them.

Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of page 197 of Wellhausen does not support "As a result, Ibn al-Zubayr lost control of most of his territory". Could you explain why you think that it does?

Wellhausen says "After this not very honourable victory Abdulmalik marched into Kufa, received the homage of the tribes and appointed his officials over the newly subdued provinces." Iraq and its eastern dependencies were under Mus'ab, Ibn al-Zubayr's brother. Abd al-Malik conquered Iraq and appointed governors over its regions. I think it is fairly accurate to rephrase it as "Ibn al-Zubayr lost these territories". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum. I am not fully convinced, but I can see (now) your line of thinking, so OK.

I note that Hitti and Murgotten is a translation. When was the original Arabic text published and why should it be considered a reliable source?

Yes, it is translation of Baladhuri's (d. 892) Futuh al-Buldan, perhaps the second most reliable and second most cited primary source author after Tabari. I think it is fine to use it occasionally, as we do with Tabari. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. Perhaps I should have realised that, but I didn't :-( .

That's it for my first read through. A nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your 100th review ;) AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It has been fun, as well as hard work getting here. Difficult to believe that they have been done in less than 18 months.

100 in 18 months? Wow! That is 5-6 reviews a month. Great.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"He was killed along with his few remaining supporters in October 692" Should that be '... in September, October or November 692'? Or, possibly 'towards the end of 692'? Similarly, shouldn't the infobox be 'March–September/October/November 692'?

I just realized while re-reading it that Wellhausen had had made a calculation error. 18 September is simply incorrect. Since siege started on 1 Dhul Qada (25 March) and then he says it lasted 6 [hijri] months and 17 days ending on 17 Jamada I, it just can't be 18 September. 18 September would be 1st of Jamada I, and 17 of Jamada I would be 4 October. Dixon has just copied the error from Wellhausen. I think we should just remove September and make it October/November in infobox and "October or November 692" in the body. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed September. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. A good piece of work on an important topic. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! indeed. Good catch. Does this mean that the Wikipedia article will be more accurate that the "reliable" sources? Neat.

Yeah

--AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm passing this as GA and leaving you to tidy up the date issue. Good luck with sourcing that.

Thank you Gog the Mild for the review, ce and helpful suggestions.

--AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Good job. I made a minor case fix edit (again). Sources don't cap "siege" in "siege of Mecca". See stats. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question on why "hatīm" gets capitalized: I see the unsigned assertion above that it's a proper name, but also no argument against the observation there that sources don't cap it. What's that about? As I read MOS:CAPS we'd use lowercase if sources often do. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]