The usual fine job, easy to read, comprehensive, and well referenced. Only some minor comments/suggestions:
Made some copyedits for minor style issues, links, etc. as more expedient.
Lede says his reign began in 1029/30, but infobox has this as May 1029 when the battle of al-Uqhuwana happened, and the main article says 'In the aftermath of al-Uqhuwana, Nasr and Thimal ruled Aleppo jointly, ' which indicates sometime (soon?) after May 1029, but not 1030. I realize the latter refers to his ouster of Thimal, but this may not be so obvious. Can we reconcile these somehow?
and the subsequent loss of the Mirdasids' central Syrian possessions is in effect repeated with more detail later on at In the aftermath of their defeat at al-Uqhuwana, the Mirdasids lost Sidon, Baalbek, Homs, and Rafaniyya, so it is rather redundant.
...on the Euphrates River near Iraq 'near Iraq' is odd: is modern or ancient Iraq meant, and what exactly does 'near' mean (and why is this important)?
Be consistent in the transliteration of Arabic terms, either strict transliteration with diacritics (e.g. khāṣtuʾl-imām) or without (e.g. ahdath); IIRC, MOS recommends the latter
Done.
which was effectively run by Ali al-Jarjara'i add that he was the vizier?
@
Cplakidas: Thanks for taking time to review this, and for your suggestions. Other than the above, let me know if anything else.
Note: I only recently came across Bianquis 1989 and will begin to mine this valuable source for information about Nasr, which is found in summary form in Bianquis's EI2 entry on the Mirdasids, in the coming weeks.
Al Ameer (
talk)
17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Al Ameer son: I have now re-reviewed the article. My comments are addressed, and I could find nothing more to complain about ;). I am happy to pass this now, and I expect to be seeing it at ACR or FA at some point, once Bianquis has been incorporated.
Constantine ✍ 16:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The usual fine job, easy to read, comprehensive, and well referenced. Only some minor comments/suggestions:
Made some copyedits for minor style issues, links, etc. as more expedient.
Lede says his reign began in 1029/30, but infobox has this as May 1029 when the battle of al-Uqhuwana happened, and the main article says 'In the aftermath of al-Uqhuwana, Nasr and Thimal ruled Aleppo jointly, ' which indicates sometime (soon?) after May 1029, but not 1030. I realize the latter refers to his ouster of Thimal, but this may not be so obvious. Can we reconcile these somehow?
and the subsequent loss of the Mirdasids' central Syrian possessions is in effect repeated with more detail later on at In the aftermath of their defeat at al-Uqhuwana, the Mirdasids lost Sidon, Baalbek, Homs, and Rafaniyya, so it is rather redundant.
...on the Euphrates River near Iraq 'near Iraq' is odd: is modern or ancient Iraq meant, and what exactly does 'near' mean (and why is this important)?
Be consistent in the transliteration of Arabic terms, either strict transliteration with diacritics (e.g. khāṣtuʾl-imām) or without (e.g. ahdath); IIRC, MOS recommends the latter
Done.
which was effectively run by Ali al-Jarjara'i add that he was the vizier?
@
Cplakidas: Thanks for taking time to review this, and for your suggestions. Other than the above, let me know if anything else.
Note: I only recently came across Bianquis 1989 and will begin to mine this valuable source for information about Nasr, which is found in summary form in Bianquis's EI2 entry on the Mirdasids, in the coming weeks.
Al Ameer (
talk)
17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Al Ameer son: I have now re-reviewed the article. My comments are addressed, and I could find nothing more to complain about ;). I am happy to pass this now, and I expect to be seeing it at ACR or FA at some point, once Bianquis has been incorporated.
Constantine ✍ 16:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply