This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
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
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
Thanks
Seraphim System for the copyedit. About your two clarification requests:
About the second paragraph of the lead, indeed Muhammad's 18 years of peaceful relations with Castile was followed by conflicts, beginning with 1264 when Muhammad supported Muslim rebels in Castile. If this transition sounded abrupt, I added "however" and "turned against", to help reader realize this. Does that help? I'm open to other suggestions as well.
About the Muslim vs Christian POV regarding the reason for "Initial conflict with Castile", the secondary source (Harvey) just presented the two accounts without deciding who's right. I don't object to your removal of "crusading drive". Do you need further clarification about this?
Ok, I added contemporary to make it clear that the disagreement is in primary sources, not secondary sources. Is there any additional secondary source analysis about the causes? (Secondary sources do not always fully rely on primary source accounts but have a more complex analysis. I think it would be good to say something here about what the majority view is in current secondary sources about the causes of the war, as this is a different issue from what the primary source accounts say.)
Seraphim System(
talk)17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I removed the clause about 1,500 sheep because I did not think it was essential and I thought the sentence was easier to read without it. I think "tried to send supplies" and "efforts were thwarted by beseigers" is stronger without being interrupted by the detail about sheep—in my opinion this lessened the impact of the sentence so I removed it. Another question about the initial conflicts in Castille — since this is a biography, I don't think we should go into too much detail about the battles, but do the sources say anything more about Muhammad's involvement or responses to the conflict, beyond trying to relieve Jaen and agreeing to terms with Ferdinand?
Seraphim System(
talk)19:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Common name: Muhammad I or Ibn al-Ahmar
The article as of now used a mixture of "Muhammad" or "Ibn al-Ahmar" when referring to the subject throughout the article. e.g. "Before Ibn al-Ahmar's rise to prominence, Ibn Hud was the de facto ruler of Al-Andalus" vs " until the early 1260s, when various actions by Castile alarmed Muhammad". Sources use both names, and the preference vary from source to source. From the sources referenced by the article:
L.P. Harvey: Islamic Spain, 1250 to 1500 (1992): prefer Muhammad
The Encyclopaedia of Islam: Nasrids (1993): prefer Muhammad
Kennedy, Hugh. Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus (2004): prefer Ibn al-Ahmar (see p.272 and around)
Simon R. Doubleday. The Wise King (2015): prefer Muhammad
Joseph F. O'Callaghan, The Gibraltar Crusade (2011): prefer Ibn al-Ahmar
W Montgomery Watt, A History of Islamic Spain (1965): prefer Muhammad (see p.126)
The Cambridge History of Islam (1970): prefer Muhammad (see p.429)
Francisco Vidal Castro (2000). "Frontera, genealogía y religión": prefer ibn al-Ahmar (see pp 797-8)
Antonio Fernández-Puertas (1997). "The Three Great Sultans": prefer Muhammad I
From these, it seems there are no consensus, although Muhammad is slightly more prevalent. Moreover, "Muhammad I" is a more systematic name (regnal name + numeral) in sync with the naming of other European monarchs in Wikipedia. It also links nicely to the
Muhammad II of Granada up to
Muhammad XII of Granada article. Therefore I will update all to Muhammad or Muhammad I for consistency.
HaEr48 (
talk)
07:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)reply
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline;
(b)
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);[2]
An appropriate set of RSs. Good to see so many relatively recent ones.
Pass
(c) (original research)
There is no evidence of OR.
Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)
Earwig shows no issues.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
All major aspects of the subjects life and times are covered.
Pass
(b) (focused)
The article seems appropriately focused.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
There is no evidence of bias and the article is presented with a NPOV.
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
So far as I can ascertain, all images are free use.
Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
Adequate use of images, with appropriate captions.
Pass
Result
Result
Notes
Pass
A fine, well worked article. Detailed, succinct, to the point. An informative treat to read. Densely cited to a solid mix of sources. Also good to see the appropriate use of Islamic dating.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
09:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi
HaEr48. No problem, I have been eying this since you nominated it but have been struggling for time. I didn't ping you as these were my initial thoughts prior to actually reading the article. (Which I hope to start, or even finish, tomorrow.) It seems in good shape and I don't foresee problems. Thanks for remedying them so quickly.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
10:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I have made a few small copy edits; revert anything you don't like.
Thank you. All of them looks good to me, except that I don't understand why you modified "His religious views appeared" to now say appear. Shouldn't it be in past tense?
HaEr48 (
talk)
05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
You are quite right. I meant to change it to "His religious views appear to have transformed during his career." but relooking at it I don't see why I needed to change it. Reverted.
"Ibn Hud". It is usual to give names in full on first mention.
"the Banu Ashqilula". Sometimes you use the definite article and sometimes you don't. This should be consistent. (IMO it should be used.)
Added the to everything
"The Banu Ashqilula agreed to negotiate under the mediation of Al-Tahurti from Morocco. Before these efforts bore fruit, Muhammad suffered fatal injuries after falling from a horse on 22 January 1273. He was succeeded by his son and designated successor
Muhammad II." It would be useful to know the outcome of the negotiations.
I tried to briefly describe the short-term resolution of this conflict
here. Does that make sense?
That makes perfect sense. It just seemed to leave a loose thread from a readers point of view. Now tied up.
Initially the occasional date is given parenthetically in the Islamic calendar, which I think is a very appropriate idea. This stops in 1238 (365). I think that a couple of further 'translations' would be helpful.
I added another one for death. But sources don't always give the Islamic calendar year for many events, especially the minor ones. An Islamic year does not begin or end at the same time as the solar year, and is a bit shorter, so there's no one-to-one mapping. I think it's okay to only have it for major events, as we do now. What do you think?
HaEr48 (
talk)
05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Just what I was trying, poorly, to communicate. That looks good.
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the
Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of
featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as
copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and
sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
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
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
Thanks
Seraphim System for the copyedit. About your two clarification requests:
About the second paragraph of the lead, indeed Muhammad's 18 years of peaceful relations with Castile was followed by conflicts, beginning with 1264 when Muhammad supported Muslim rebels in Castile. If this transition sounded abrupt, I added "however" and "turned against", to help reader realize this. Does that help? I'm open to other suggestions as well.
About the Muslim vs Christian POV regarding the reason for "Initial conflict with Castile", the secondary source (Harvey) just presented the two accounts without deciding who's right. I don't object to your removal of "crusading drive". Do you need further clarification about this?
Ok, I added contemporary to make it clear that the disagreement is in primary sources, not secondary sources. Is there any additional secondary source analysis about the causes? (Secondary sources do not always fully rely on primary source accounts but have a more complex analysis. I think it would be good to say something here about what the majority view is in current secondary sources about the causes of the war, as this is a different issue from what the primary source accounts say.)
Seraphim System(
talk)17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I removed the clause about 1,500 sheep because I did not think it was essential and I thought the sentence was easier to read without it. I think "tried to send supplies" and "efforts were thwarted by beseigers" is stronger without being interrupted by the detail about sheep—in my opinion this lessened the impact of the sentence so I removed it. Another question about the initial conflicts in Castille — since this is a biography, I don't think we should go into too much detail about the battles, but do the sources say anything more about Muhammad's involvement or responses to the conflict, beyond trying to relieve Jaen and agreeing to terms with Ferdinand?
Seraphim System(
talk)19:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Common name: Muhammad I or Ibn al-Ahmar
The article as of now used a mixture of "Muhammad" or "Ibn al-Ahmar" when referring to the subject throughout the article. e.g. "Before Ibn al-Ahmar's rise to prominence, Ibn Hud was the de facto ruler of Al-Andalus" vs " until the early 1260s, when various actions by Castile alarmed Muhammad". Sources use both names, and the preference vary from source to source. From the sources referenced by the article:
L.P. Harvey: Islamic Spain, 1250 to 1500 (1992): prefer Muhammad
The Encyclopaedia of Islam: Nasrids (1993): prefer Muhammad
Kennedy, Hugh. Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus (2004): prefer Ibn al-Ahmar (see p.272 and around)
Simon R. Doubleday. The Wise King (2015): prefer Muhammad
Joseph F. O'Callaghan, The Gibraltar Crusade (2011): prefer Ibn al-Ahmar
W Montgomery Watt, A History of Islamic Spain (1965): prefer Muhammad (see p.126)
The Cambridge History of Islam (1970): prefer Muhammad (see p.429)
Francisco Vidal Castro (2000). "Frontera, genealogía y religión": prefer ibn al-Ahmar (see pp 797-8)
Antonio Fernández-Puertas (1997). "The Three Great Sultans": prefer Muhammad I
From these, it seems there are no consensus, although Muhammad is slightly more prevalent. Moreover, "Muhammad I" is a more systematic name (regnal name + numeral) in sync with the naming of other European monarchs in Wikipedia. It also links nicely to the
Muhammad II of Granada up to
Muhammad XII of Granada article. Therefore I will update all to Muhammad or Muhammad I for consistency.
HaEr48 (
talk)
07:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)reply
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline;
(b)
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);[2]
An appropriate set of RSs. Good to see so many relatively recent ones.
Pass
(c) (original research)
There is no evidence of OR.
Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)
Earwig shows no issues.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
All major aspects of the subjects life and times are covered.
Pass
(b) (focused)
The article seems appropriately focused.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
There is no evidence of bias and the article is presented with a NPOV.
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
So far as I can ascertain, all images are free use.
Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
Adequate use of images, with appropriate captions.
Pass
Result
Result
Notes
Pass
A fine, well worked article. Detailed, succinct, to the point. An informative treat to read. Densely cited to a solid mix of sources. Also good to see the appropriate use of Islamic dating.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
09:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi
HaEr48. No problem, I have been eying this since you nominated it but have been struggling for time. I didn't ping you as these were my initial thoughts prior to actually reading the article. (Which I hope to start, or even finish, tomorrow.) It seems in good shape and I don't foresee problems. Thanks for remedying them so quickly.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
10:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I have made a few small copy edits; revert anything you don't like.
Thank you. All of them looks good to me, except that I don't understand why you modified "His religious views appeared" to now say appear. Shouldn't it be in past tense?
HaEr48 (
talk)
05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
You are quite right. I meant to change it to "His religious views appear to have transformed during his career." but relooking at it I don't see why I needed to change it. Reverted.
"Ibn Hud". It is usual to give names in full on first mention.
"the Banu Ashqilula". Sometimes you use the definite article and sometimes you don't. This should be consistent. (IMO it should be used.)
Added the to everything
"The Banu Ashqilula agreed to negotiate under the mediation of Al-Tahurti from Morocco. Before these efforts bore fruit, Muhammad suffered fatal injuries after falling from a horse on 22 January 1273. He was succeeded by his son and designated successor
Muhammad II." It would be useful to know the outcome of the negotiations.
I tried to briefly describe the short-term resolution of this conflict
here. Does that make sense?
That makes perfect sense. It just seemed to leave a loose thread from a readers point of view. Now tied up.
Initially the occasional date is given parenthetically in the Islamic calendar, which I think is a very appropriate idea. This stops in 1238 (365). I think that a couple of further 'translations' would be helpful.
I added another one for death. But sources don't always give the Islamic calendar year for many events, especially the minor ones. An Islamic year does not begin or end at the same time as the solar year, and is a bit shorter, so there's no one-to-one mapping. I think it's okay to only have it for major events, as we do now. What do you think?
HaEr48 (
talk)
05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Just what I was trying, poorly, to communicate. That looks good.
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the
Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of
featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as
copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and
sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.