Jump to content

Talk:Sack of Mecca

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 AirshipJungleman29 (talk12:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Cplakidas (talk). Self-nominated at 13:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sack of Mecca (930); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

The article met the criteria through many extensions. In addition, it is judged that it meets the appropriate reference criteria by referring to officially published books. The proposed hook also provides sufficient attention. Religious disputes have always attracted the attention of many people.Kloyan.L (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Nominator: Cplakidas (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 22:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Review

[edit]
I am happy to review this. Bruxton (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
Green tickY Regarding your use of dashes 927-928 consider using "927–928"
AFAICT it is already an endash? Constantine 19:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put them in the lead. Bruxton (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY "winter 929/930" consider "929–930"
Changed. Constantine 19:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY the lead says "The city was plundered for eight to eleven days," the body says "The Qarmatians continued their killing and plundering for eight or eleven days". Can we line them up by using the language of the lead?
Done. Constantine 19:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
Green tickY "all its decorations and relics taken away" consider "were" taken away
Done. Constantine 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY "This act meant a complete break between the Qarmatians and the Islamic world" maybe "meant" is the wrong word here. The act "caused" or some similar?
Replaced with 'was tantamount to'. Constantine 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motives for the attack

[edit]
Green tickY "On the other hand, as the historian Heinz Halm points out" consider replacing the colloquial "On the other hand"
Removed. Constantine 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Tahir and the war with the Abbasids

[edit]
Green tickY "Even the city's iron gates were dismantled and taken back to Bahrayn" consider using some other set up instead of "even" or just say "The city's iron gates were dismantled and taken back to Bahrayn"
I have added something before 'even', but I don't think removing it improves anything... Taking the gates of a sacked city with you is a fairly unusual move and is remarkable as such. Constantine 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? "Under the leadership of the barely 16-year-old Abu Tahir" suggest removing barely
Removed. Constantine 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY "Furthermore, factional rivalries in the Abbasid court" "furthermore" is a WP:WTW and should be remove
Removed. Constantine 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY "but the authorities nevertheless paid a hefty sum" suggest removing nevertheless
Removed. Constantine 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of the pilgrims and plundering of the city

[edit]
Green tickY "One report, obviously exaggerated, suggests" do we know why it is obviously exaggerated?
This comes from the cited source, I have rephrased accordingly. Most medieval reports have a tendency to inflate casualties, booty, size of enemy armies, etc. Constantine 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motives for the attack

[edit]
Green tickY "who were considered as usurpers by the" I think we can remove the word "as"
Removed. Constantine 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]
Green tickY "Nevertheless, the affair of the false Mahdi tarnished the prestige of Abu Tahir" consider removing nevertheless
Removed. Constantine 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]
Green tickY Earwig has no matches, so individual sources will be checked.
? You should consider using {{r|Johnson|p=51}} citation style - some of your citations give a page range of ten pages
I don't understand why that would be required. Where more than one or two pages are referenced, it is because the text summarizes these pages. I also cannot find a range of ten pages anywhere. Constantine 20:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Origins of the Qarmatians of Bahrayn section - only one source is accessible here. AGF
? Abu Tahir and the war with the Abbasids section all sources are offline
 Not done I am not able to access citations throughout. I wonder if you might email me some screen shots of sources so that I can spot check? @Cplakidas: After you address the items I will do more checks. Bruxton (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: Certainly I can email you some photos of sources; which ones do you require? Constantine 20:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: pick at least one citation from each section. Bruxton (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: I assume you want me to focus on Halm and Daftary, since these sources are offline; it will likely take a couple of days. Constantine 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: do your best - I was hoping to wrap this up by Sunday. Bruxton (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: email has been sent. Constantine 10:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I do not speak or read German so I have to AGF on the Halm source. The Isma'ilis I was able to spot check several citations to see that they line up. Bruxton (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
Green tickY Three images appear in the article and they are correctly licensed and free. Bruxton (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chart

[edit]

Status:

100% reviewed

   

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Yes
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Yes
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Yes
2c. it contains no original research. Yes
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Yes
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Yes
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Yes
7. Overall assessment. Well done!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.