Talk:Fourth Fitna/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 01:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- The text is very dense and I found it a little hard to keep track of who supported whom. I think, though, that's more a problem of similar styles of Arab names that I'm not accustomed to. I'm also not sure how this civil war sits in the succession dispute between the Abbasids and the Alids, and, hence, the formation of Shiaa'ism, if it's even particularly relevant. In short, this is something about which I know almost nothing, unlike the Byzantine material where I have a rough idea how things fit together. And I'm not sure how you can even address the issues that I mentioned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- Hello Sturmvogel! I've added the missing locations. I sympathize with the problem you faced, I myself am only too fresh into the field of early Islamic history myself. Could you please tell me which sections in particular gave you the most trouble? I've asked or will ask for input from other users, some more and some less experienced on the topic, but I'd like to know where to focus my attention. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I started to lose track of things in the Sahlid dominance section, but the following sections are easier to follow. If, like I think it does, this civil war plays a part in the formation of Shia'ism then that needs to be emphasized more because the difference between the Alid and Abbasid factions seems to be a bit more substantial than mere rivalry.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the civil war didn't really change that much on Shi'ism (except for providing yet another martyr imam). The Abbasids had always an ambiguous relationship with the Alids, who were their major rivals for Shi'a affections (and whose claim on leadership of the Muslim world was stronger): some caliphs gave them pensions and kept them at court, others persecuted them. No one other than Ma'mun ever went to the point of adopting an Alid as his heir, but I am not sure how to incorporate this into the article. Let me mull it over for a few days. Constantine ✍ 06:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was inspired by this discussion to write up a little article on the Alid Revolt (762–763) that illustrates the relationship between the two families. I could write a short paragraph containing the Background and Aftermath sections in very condensed form, but I hesitate to add it in the main article. Perhaps it should be added as a footnote? Constantine ✍ 10:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that a condensed version in a footnote would be good because I was under the impression that Shi'ism wasn't formally formed until several hundred years later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've added the relevant note, and changed the reference to the "Shi'a imam" by replacing "Shi'a" with "Alid". "Shi'a" is indeed rather anachronistic and unnecessary, since at this time, the Alid-Abbasid split was mostly a dynastic one rather than one reflecting the Shi'a-Sunni fault line. Constantine ✍ 18:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that a condensed version in a footnote would be good because I was under the impression that Shi'ism wasn't formally formed until several hundred years later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- I was inspired by this discussion to write up a little article on the Alid Revolt (762–763) that illustrates the relationship between the two families. I could write a short paragraph containing the Background and Aftermath sections in very condensed form, but I hesitate to add it in the main article. Perhaps it should be added as a footnote? Constantine ✍ 10:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the civil war didn't really change that much on Shi'ism (except for providing yet another martyr imam). The Abbasids had always an ambiguous relationship with the Alids, who were their major rivals for Shi'a affections (and whose claim on leadership of the Muslim world was stronger): some caliphs gave them pensions and kept them at court, others persecuted them. No one other than Ma'mun ever went to the point of adopting an Alid as his heir, but I am not sure how to incorporate this into the article. Let me mull it over for a few days. Constantine ✍ 06:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I started to lose track of things in the Sahlid dominance section, but the following sections are easier to follow. If, like I think it does, this civil war plays a part in the formation of Shia'ism then that needs to be emphasized more because the difference between the Alid and Abbasid factions seems to be a bit more substantial than mere rivalry.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Sturmvogel! I've added the missing locations. I sympathize with the problem you faced, I myself am only too fresh into the field of early Islamic history myself. Could you please tell me which sections in particular gave you the most trouble? I've asked or will ask for input from other users, some more and some less experienced on the topic, but I'd like to know where to focus my attention. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)