Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Yarmouk/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:41, 26 July 2010 [1].

Battle of Yarmouk

edit

Battle of Yarmouk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i have been working on this article for a very long time, I was promoted to GA class a couple of months ago and now I think its time for FA class. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article still appears to be undergoing a GA review, I'd recommend withdrawing this nomination until the GA review is complete. Nev1 (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And no, it wasn't "promoted to GA class a couple of months ago". Aaroncrick TALK 23:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article should not be at GAC and FAC simultaneously. As the GA review is already under-way and Pyrotec (talk · contribs) is giving feedback, this review should be closed. Nev1 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nev1, you have mistaken this article for another. You seem to think that this FAC is for Khalid ibn al-Walid which is'f' undergoing a GA review. The article that this FAC is for, Battle of Yarmouk passed a GA review in March of this year (Talk:Battle of Yarmouk/GA1) -MBK004 01:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry guys, not quite sure how I got those two confused. Time to call it a day. I'll do penance by doing a proper review of this article in the next couple of days. Nev1 (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Why is there an Arabic- but not a Greek-alphabet form of the name in the lead? Why is there an apostrophe in "O' Syria"? And quotes of two lines do not need to go into a blockquote. Ucucha 19:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the problem with quotation (removing blockquote), as for the greek alphabets, as a matter of fact i cant speak greek if you can, feel free to add, or i can expect it from any other user who speaks/writes greek, to add those alphabets in the lead along side arabic.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek form would be Ἱερομυαξ (assuming the Greek name currently given in the article is correct), but you should confirm that this is correct. Ucucha 16:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the last sentence, shouldn't that be "battles" and "the modern world"? Were the mistakes in the quote itself? - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources comments
  • Page ranges require "pp." not "p." See 10, 12, 62 and check for others
  • Citations include "Akram 2004", "Akram 1975" and "Akram 2003". Bibliography only has Akram 2009 and Akram 2004.
  • Presumably "Akram, A.I" and "Akram, Agha Ibrahim" are the same person. A consistent format should be used.
  • There is a reference in the Notes to "Haldon 2008", but no such book appears in the bibliography.
  • Citations are to "Runciman 1991" but the biblography only gives "Runciman 1987"
  • Both the Treadgold notes are to Treadgold 1997. Another Treadgold book, published 1998, appears in the bibliography. If this is not a cited work, it should be listed separately under "Further reading".
  • I am dubious about the section headed "Notes". For example, why do you need to cite so many different estimates of the sizes of the Roman and Muslim armies?
    • Can you comment on this ?
  • Many of the notes from (g) onwards contain information which ought to be cited to a source.
  • Other notes are incomprehensible, e.g. "Runciman expresses in his book the following to have been said in an agonising and bitter cry" (to what does "the following" refer), and " Concepts used in the description of the battle lines of the Muslims and the Byzantines. See image." (Which image?)

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have worked on above mentioned issues with the references section, and have removed unnecessary statements and have corrected the pp and p formatting.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


@ user Brianboulton.
  • Citations include "Akram 2004", "Akram 1975" and "Akram 2003". Bibliography only has Akram 2009 and Akram 2004.
Corrected.
  • I am dubious about the section headed "Notes". For example, why do you need to cite so many different estimates of the sizes of the Roman and Muslim armies?
It was due to edit war in past, now i have trimmed it down to only those author's who's work has been used as a source in compiling this article.
  • Many of the notes from (g) onwards contain information which ought to be cited to a source.
All of them now have a reference to a source book or article.
  • Other notes are incomprehensible, e.g. "Runciman expresses in his book the following to have been said in an agonising and bitter cry" (to what does "the following" refer)
It has been deleted.
  • Concepts used in the description of the battle lines of the Muslims and the Byzantines. See image." (Which image?)
I have specified the name now, it Image-1.


Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mainly on criterion 1c
  • The infobox gives modern estimates on casualties and figures from original sources for the Byzantines and Ghassanids (a good idea), but not the Rashidun. Why not?
  • In the plans showing the different phases of the battle (an interesting illustration and a good idea), shouldn’t the pale grey blocks representing the cavalry reserve be coloured for the appropriate army (ie: pale blue or pale red)?
  • The content of Nicole 1994 seems to start at page 7 (cf. [2]), the previous pages seeming to be the usual information about publishers etc. So I'm wondering what is said on page 1 that is used in reference 6 and on page 4 as used in reference 16. While page 1 isn't in the Google books preview, page 4 is and it appears to contain just details on publishing and copyright.
  • According to Nicole 1994, p 14, it seems that it was the Riddah Wars that resulted in the creation of a Muslim state encompassing the Arabian peninsula. This contrasts somewhat with the claim that by 630 Mohammad "he had successfully united most of the Arabia under a single political authority", referenced to the same book.
  • "just a march away from Aleppo": a march is quite vague, is there something more specific?
  • A preview of Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium is available on Google books. I don't see how the material on page 134 supports the statement sourced to reference 33 that "This was a strong defensive position and these manoeuvres pitted the Muslims and Byzantines into a decisive battle, one which the latter they had tried to avoid"
  • There's similar problem for reference 38. I don't see talk of figures on page 131 of Kaegi's book to support "Most early Muslim accounts place the size of the Muslim forces between 24,000 and 40,000 and the number of Byzantine forces between 100,000 and 200,000. Modern estimates of the sizes of the respective armies vary: estimates for the Byzantine army are mostly between 80,000 and 120,000, with some estimates as low as 50,000 and 15,000–20,000."
  • Reference 75 (Kaegi 2003, 136) is used to support "Jonah, the Greek informant of the Rashidun army during the Conquest of Damascus died in this battle. The Muslims took no prisoners in this battle, although they may have captured some during the subsequent pursuit". I believe page 136 of the source referenced is actually talking about the Siege of Constantinople (626). The preview for this book is limited, and many of the references fall in parts that are not included in the Google preview, however the above three examples (and the problems with Nicole) are enough for concern. I can't see the index, but it is puzzling that searching Kaegi's book for "Yarmouk" returns only one result.
  • Bibliographic details for the books by Akram (1970), Baladhuri, Chandler, Ghawanma (1985), Kindersley, Mango, Norwich (1989), and Wilson Cash (2007) mentioned in the notes section are missing. It would also be a good idea to provide the page numbers on which the estimates are given for each volume. Nev1 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Your concerns are quite genuine, in fact they are sort of my funny mistake, i by mistake, had titled both Kaegi's book as "Kaegi 2003". All the references dealing with pages between 121-140 were of Kaegi's 1995 book Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests and by mistake i had tagged all the references to Kaegi's book Heraclius: emperor of Byzantium (2003 edition).

Any ways i have corrected them all now, you can cross check them. As for Nicolle's references, they were different from the google's version because i had used the "Yarmouk 636, muslim conquest of syria" in PDF version, which had different page allocation then that of google book. I have also fixed them now, feel free to cross check.

And yes, dont search in kaegi's books by the name "yarmouk" search by the name "yarmuk" and you will found a thousand results in both books.

Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, getting the year of a particular book muddled can happen (I've done it myself). I'll take a closer look at the article later. One question now though, what is on page 6 of Nicolle's book that is being used as a reference, because it's a map of the region in 634. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA Criteria 3 has any thought been put into turning the many battle movement images into a single animation? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


@User:Nev1, In the version that i am using, (PDF file), Page 6 starts with the section Origin of the campaign and the map is on page 5. If you wish, give me ur email and I can send you a copy of this book.

Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: That David Nicolle, who is liable to such exaggerations when his favs are concerned, puts Khalid ibn al-Walid on such a pedestal ("finest cavalry commanders in history", "one of a great tacticians and cavalry commanders in history") means actually nothing, particularly since the claim comes from an Osprey Publication where the general tone is quite different from standard scholarly sources. In a FA, the main author can be expected to show his equidistance to his references, and his general grasp of the topic, by more carefully filtering such declarations of love, instead of relaying them uncritically to the unsuspecting reader. Sorry, but I am always sceptical of such designations, because they immediately evoke the impression that the article has also been written with the aim in mind to elevate the central figure to its 'deserved' heroical status. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


David nicolle is widely considered a reliable source, and i would not call it his "love for Khalid" but his appreciation for his skills. In fact you can search on net, different scholars have high regards for Khalid's skills. I am not sure dis-likeness to a particular author, can be a reason for Opposing any article. Beside nicolle, there are several other authors too, who's work has been used as a reference to this article. Moreover if some sentences sound like hero worship feel free to rephrase them.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt that DN conforms to WP:Reliable, but I object to you giving his opinion WP:Undue weight. I do not doubt that Khalid is rated as a commander by historians, but that does not mean that the article should jump to the same crude and predictable "one of the best ever" conclusion, which increasingly infest the military history of this encyclopedia. If he was that good, wouldn't it be more sublime to praise his skills while describing his moves? Along the line "Khalid decide to make a sudden move which surprised the Byzantines" or "Khalid moved his cavalry skillfully around the flank of the enemy". Much more helpful for the reader than this crude hero worship. I remain opposed because this approach makes me lack faith in the overall objectivity of the article. Certainly good for GA, but not good enough for the very highest standard. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@user dank,

If you think there is any mistake in the quote please try helping by fixing it. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I see no reason to oppose, all the i's appear dotted and the t's crossed. Could maybe benefit from a little fine tuning for the occasional offbeat English use, but otherwise a good article worthy of an FA star. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


@user gun powder
if you feel that at some points the tone of the article is too bias towards khalid's skills, then help by fixing them.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Yarmouk/archive2&oldid=743169030"