Talk:Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Nasafi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 23:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello there,. I would be glad to review this. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with images, layout, stability, neutrality, and copyright. I would recommend a few prose tweaks or more elaboration in some parts:


 * Is there perhaps a more specific word than "preponderance" for the lead?
 * Clarified.
 * Some early 20th-century scholars read the nisbah as al-Barda'i, indicating an origin from Barda'a, but this is erroneous. Which scholars, and why is this known to be erroneous?
 * Added the scholars, but the explanation would be too much of a detail for the scope of the article. The reference is there and the article is online, it can be looked up.
 * A brief mention of the extent of the "contemporary Islamic world" could be helpful.
 * Hmmm. The focus here is that it was in the periphery of Islamic civilization; mentioning that this civilization stretched to North Africa and Spain is not really relevant, IMO.
 * Some general mention of why his initial attempts to convert members of the Samanid court failed would help, as well as how long those attempts lasted.
 * This is not known; information is scarce, and has to be gleaned from later writers who often followed their own agendas. The article presents a reconstruction of events by modern scholars. Al-Nasafi's departur of Bukhara and return to Nasaf is interpreted as a sign that his early efforts failed.
 * These developments caused a reaction among the Sunni establishment, and especially the Samanids' Turkic soldiery. "Caused a reaction" alone is rather vague; the next lines make it clear that it was a negative one, so specifying in this sentence would help.
 * Rephrased.
 * According to Nizam al-Mulk The previous line was also about Nizam al-Mulk's claims, so you could just say "him".
 * Hmmm, I think there is a danger of confusion here: the last person mentioned is 'one of their commanders'. It is better to be repetitive here than have a reader have to check twice what is meant.
 * As the historian Samuel Miklos Stern notes Mentioning his nationality and/or what year he said this wouldn't hurt.
 * Done.
 * Two other manuscripts, held at a private library in India, are also ascribed to al-Nasafi. India is a fairly large country; does your source go into any further detail about location?
 * Unfortunately no. Some of the modern sources are also frustratingly vague with their information.

If you can't find information on any of these points, you are free to ignore them. I'll place it on hold, but it looks quite good already. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've dealt with your comments as best as I can. Anything else? Was the article easy to understand, given its rather specialized subject? Constantine  ✍  19:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely easy enough to understand. I can see why you were unable to address some of these issues, and why you preferred to leave some things alone. I don't think there are any major problems (the image matter brought up below is unfortunate, but not your fault, and the statements you made are valid), and the article is very likely as good as it could possibly be, so I will pass it. Very good work overall. An anonymous username, not my real name  22:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and suggestions, ! Constantine  ✍  08:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment by a455bcd9
File:Map of the Samanid amirate at the death of Nasr II, 943.svg isn't correctly sourced: "Cambridge History of Iran vol 4, Iranica, etc. Might add a more detailed list in the future." A455bcd9 (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * a matter for or, but knowing both I am fairly confident in the map's accuracy (or at least, that it represents a best-effort approach). Constantine   ✍  19:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cplakidas: yes I don't say that the map isn't accurate. Just that per WP:GACR we want "a list of all references (sources of information)" from reliable sources. And currently it doesn't seem to be the case. A455bcd9 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, this is a case of AGF, I think. The Cambridge History of Iran is definitely WP:RS, as is Encyclopaedia Iranica. I would of course also prefer a more detailed breakdown of the sources, but unless I have reason to believe that the sources were not actually consulted, or somehow misconstrued, then I do consider that criterion met. Given my past interaction with both of the above-mentioned users, I would be very surprised if that were the case. Constantine  ✍  19:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't get what you were saying the second time either, apparently. Now I understand: you suggest the sources for the map should be in the article? That is not what we do, though: media are stand-alone works, and their sources should be listed on their own page. This is just like the works I cite: they also cite their own sources, but it would be problematic if I also had to include them here. And the map was not used as a source for the article, it is there to give a reader an idea of the extent of the Samanid domains. Constantine  ✍  19:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cplakidas: sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my initial message. My point: all sources used to create the map should be listed in the file description. Any reader should be able to verify the facts. Unfortunately, currently the file description says after "Cambridge History of Iran" (definitely RS) "etc. Might add a more detailed list in the future." So I assume that several sources were used to create this image but only one of them is cited. That's why we should add:
 * The full citation of the Cambridge History of Iran, with the specific page number(s) (or URL to the web version)
 * All other sources used (if any).
 * I hope my point is clearer this time :) A455bcd9 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, then I did understand (sort of) correctly first. Well, in this case, again: a) this is an issue for the image and its authors (I've pinged them, though Ro4444 at least is long inactive, perhaps can help), and b) it is my understanding that the GA criteria do not place any requirements on the sourcing of the media files used, only on the article itself. I have encountered the requirement for maps to have RS in FA candidacies, but not consistently, and never before at GA. Constantine   ✍  22:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cplakidas: First of all, my comment is just... a comment :) I didn't review the whole article and only noticed that point, and I don't know whether this is enough to oppose the nomination of what seems to be a well-written article.
 * Then, I've also encountered the WP:RS requirement for images in WP:FAC. So believed it applied to WP:GAN as well. Indeed, WP:GACR says that a GA is "Verifiable" and WP:V says that: "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources [...] everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable". WP:V says it applies to "any of the information within Wikipedia articles". (see also this long discussion...)
 * Besides this nomination, we can always ask the question on Wikipedia talk:Good articles. A455bcd9 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem . I agree this is a grey area, as maps are also information, not just illustration. We should go ahead and ask this. Constantine  ✍  08:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello there. I'll see if I can remember which sources I used and add them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Done! (I also made some changes to the map) --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the prompt response,, much appreciated! Constantine  ✍  19:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot @HistoryofIran! A455bcd9 (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to go ahead and ask (I'm on mobile now so not ideal 😅). A455bcd9 (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)