Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan/archive1

Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan

 * Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the most successful caliph in history. At the time of his accession, the Umayyad Caliphate had lost about two-thirds of its territory to Muslim rivals, a resurgent Byzantium and Berber rebels, while his Syrian home front faced multiple threats. In 15 years he defeated them all. The caliphate's reunification was coupled with unprecedented centralization. A uniquely Islamic currency was introduced and Arabic became the language of administration, setting in motion its development as the lingua franca of the Arab world. The Dome of the Rock he founded in Jerusalem, the first great monument built by a Muslim ruler, contains the earliest inscriptions proclaiming "Islam" and its prophet Muhammad. No caliph before him and few after him played such a formative role in the creation of the Muslim state. The foundations he laid enabled his son and successor to oversee the Umayyads' greatest territorial extent and peak of prosperity, though the dependence on the Syrian army begun by him contributed to the dynasty's ignominious fall in 750. I began intensive work on this article six months ago and believe it meets FA criteria. Al Ameer (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine
I will post my remarks here as I go through the article. Will continue with the rest tomorrow. Constantine  ✍  19:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Lede
 * "had collapsed across the caliphate" hmmm, "caliphate" with lower case means the institution rather than the state; I would recommend either capitalizing it or replacing it with "[Muslim? Umayyad?] empire" or analogous. Ditto for the remainder of the article
 * "under Abd al-Malik's suzerainty." the term "suzerainty" is usually used in its technical sense of overlordship, which given the centralizing tendencies of the Umayyads is rather inaccurate; "rule" would be better IMO.
 * "having stamped out opposition" -> "stamping out opposition"?
 * "rule over the caliphate was centralized" perhaps "rule over the provinces of the Caliphate was centralized"?
 * "the domestically peaceful and prosperous consolidation of power" -> "a domestically..."
 * "less reliable, localized Arab garrisons" I think you meant "less reliable, locally recruited Arab garrisons" or something to that effect?
 * Thanks for the suggestions, I’ve the made the adjustments. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Early life
 * "The latter had been ardent opponents.." This is a bit confusingly formulated. Perhaps rearrange like this: "The Islamic prophet Muhammad was also a member of the Quraysh, but the rest of the tribe had been his ardent opponents before they embraced Islam in 630. After that, the Quraysh gradually came to dominate Muslim politics".
 * "by Caliph Mu'awiya I (r. 661–680)" (optional) perhaps add the familial relationship between Abd al-Malik and Mu'awiya here (second cousin once removed, I think? perhaps "distant cousin" suffices, a it also conveys the lack of inter-personal relationship)
 * "When a revolt broke out in Medina" add the precise date
 * "to the rival Mecca-based Caliph" here the opposite to my comment above holds true, "caliph" is descriptive of the office and so should not be capitalized
 * Done — For the first point about Quraysh, I revised a bit differently from your suggestion. Change it if necessary. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Reign
 * "notes Abd al-Malik was nominated" -> "notes that Abd al-Malik was nominated"
 * "staffed by the mawālī" -> "staffed by the mawālī"
 * "intensified his raids and inflicted heavy tolls against" -> "intensified his raids and exacted a heavy toll on" or "inflicted heavy casualties on". The same further on "at the heavy toll he had inflicted"
 * 'became the "dominant figure"' either "becomes" or simply "is the dominant figure", since he still is the dominant figure in the sources we have available and that is unlikely to change
 * "bombarded the city" add "with catapults" at the end of the phrase, lest anyone should think that he had cannon
 * "he installed al-Hajjaj in the post instead" add the year
 * "a Zubayrid holdover with long experience combating the Azariqa, whom he defeated in 697" a bit unclear who defeated who here, perhaps "Against the Azariqa, al-Hajjaj backed al-Muhallab ibn Abi Sufra al-Azdi, a Zubayrid holdover with long experience combating them. Al-Muhallab finally defeated the Azariqa in 697."
 * "flared in the heart of Iraq" -> "flared up in the heart of Iraq". Ditto for "flared until 692–694"
 * "In an effort to reduce expenditure, al-Hajjaj had reduced the Iraqis' pay to less than that of their Syrian counterparts in the province.[44] Upon becoming governor..." the chronological order here is reversed, I would suggest rearranging the two sentences (also because threatening execution is rather more severe than cutting pay)
 * " according to Kennedy" link and introduce him as a historian
 * "for refusing to pay the annual tribute" rather irrelevant why the campaign to Zabulistan was ordered, IMO
 * "revolted in Sistan," I would add "marched back" after that
 * "in favor of a Muslim currency introduced that year." add a "see below" and link the section after that
 * Done — For the last point, check if the "see below" link is properly placed, I've used this before. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Legacy
 * "the major achievements of al-Walid's rule" which were? AFAIK, these were mostly territorial expansion, so simply note that
 * " by issuing Islamization measures" -> "by enacting/imposing Islamization measures"
 * "in the Sasanian design" link Sasanian, also explain that the dirham was used in the eastern, formerly Persian provinces. This will also help explain why there was a Persian-speaking diwan in Iraq.
 * "Persian Khurasan" why "Persian" here?
 * Done. Struggled a bit formulating the third point. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's all from me in terms of prose and some issues of detail. Content-wise, it is really a superb piece of work, well referenced, well written, and extremely comprehensive. I will have a look whether I can add anything more from the Byzantine side, but I doubt it. Again, well done. Constantine  ✍  06:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to go over the article (and your previous additions regarding Abd al-Malik's struggles with the Byzantines and other improvements). I responded to your points section-by-section. I hope your concerns have now been addressed. If anything about my recent changes is off, please revise as you see fit. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Al Ameer, the changes look good. I've also added some more details on the Byzantine-Armenian front during the resumption of hostilities. Particularly the suppression of the Armenian rebellion in 703-705 was a seminal event in that country's history. Plus I thought one should explain Justinian's motivations, and mention the fact that the caliph's own sons led the raids into Byzantium. And I found an indirect reference to him repairing the Kaaba, which I added (also gives a nice plug for a figure like John of Damascus). Feel free to tweak around :). Anyhow, since my comments above are addressed, and I have myself finished any additions I was going to make, I am pleased to switch to support. Constantine  ✍  12:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All interesting information, glad you were able to find it ;) I plan on starting the article on John's influential father Sarjun if no one else does. Thanks for the latest additions and support. Cheers, --Al Ameer (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was also intrigued and planning on starting the article, actually, but if you want to go ahead :). Constantine  ✍  21:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Now I insist that you start it ;) I'll add to it if necessary. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest scaling up the first three maps
 * Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the maps be enlarged? And if so, should I do the same with the other images? —Al Ameer (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes to the first (using upright), not necessarily to the second. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * File:First_Umayyad_gold_dinar,_Caliph_Abd_al-Malik,_695_CE.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original coin. Same with File:Dinar_of_Abd_al-Malik,_AH_75.jpg
 * Done (I think). —Al Ameer (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Won't PDing the File:First_Umayyad_gold_dinar,_Caliph_Abd_al-Malik,_695_CE.jpg violate photographers rights who has released it as cc-by-sa-3.0? ?  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I enlarged the maps, please let me know if any adjustments should be made. --Al Ameer (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A photograph of a three-dimensional work like a coin has two copyrights: that of the photo, and that of the object itself. Applying a PD tag to the object itself has no impact on the CC tag for the photo, as long as it's relatively clear which tag applies to what. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the tag here states the media file is PD.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to suggest a rephrasing of the tag if you think the existing one is likely to be confusing; however, IMO with a bit of rearranging to make clear which tag applies to what this should be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I think something similar to Template:PD-art-3d should exist for coins too to state clearly that "original work is PD, but the image is not." ;) Just an opinion though. If the current tag is adequate to your expert eye, then, off course, I have no problem with it. Thanks.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It would also be fine to use that tag instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Mukhtar_al-Thaqafi_Control_on_Iraq.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the map because I don’t know. I will replace or modify it with sources, though I cannot estimate how long that will take. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Any issue with the two pictures I added to the “Renewal of Byzantine wars in Anatolia, Armenia and North Africa“ section? —Al Ameer (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. And same question goes for the map added to the “Early challenges” section. —Al Ameer (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by AhmadLX
Disclosure: I reviewed this at GAN.
 * Suggest linking "first generation of born-Muslims" to Tabi‘un.
 * Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "...Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, who had just been expelled by the Zubayrids from his governorship in Iraq." This is imprecise. Ashraf recognized Ibn al-Zubayr only after expelling Ibn Ziyad.
 * Thank you, I don’t know who else could have caught that :) Al Ameer (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "At the time of his accession, important administrative offices were held by members of Abd al-Malik's family...The caliph's ḥaras(personal guard) was typically led by a mawlā (non-Arab Muslim freedman; pl: mawālī) and staffed by the mawālī." Why does this belong in "Early challenges"?
 * Good point. I originally had it in Legacy where it didn’t belong, but now I’ve moved it up just one place to “Accession”. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "[Ibn Ziyad] was tasked by Abd al-Malik with the reconquest of Iraq." I think it was Marwan who sent him to reconquer Iraq. By the time of Abd Al-Malik's accession, Ibn Ziyad was already in northern Syria.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember from the Marwan I article. I’ve corrected it now. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I see some balance issues: Zufar's defection is mentioned in one sentence, only two campaigns against Mus'ab are discussed (Dixon discusses three, Wellhausen also concludes there were three), but you do mention camping at Nukhayla (trivial, I would have omitted this).
 * Zufar's defection, though important enough to mention because it removed Abd al-Malik's obstacle to Iraq, doesn't warrant more than a sentence. I chose not to include the second campaign against Mus'ab because nothing came of it (no confrontation, losses/gains), but briefly mentioned the equally nonproductive first campaign ("... Abd al-Malik used the respite from the truce to initiate a campaign against the Zubayrids of Iraq ...") because it sets the stage for a more dangerous development: al-Ashdaq's attempted coup in the capital Damascus; otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it either. As for the encampment at Nukhayla where Abd al-Malik prepared and dispatched a Syrian army under al-Hajjaj to subdue his greatest enemy, Ibn al-Zubayr, I added this because it illustrates Abd al-Malik's last active involvement in the Second Fitna. After he dispatched the army, he apparently returned to Syria, while al-Hajjaj and Tariq ibn Amr dealt with Ibn al-Zubayr. I trimmed it in any case, hopefully the revised version addresses your concern here. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "[Hajjaj] had risen through the ranks to become a highly competent and efficient supporter of the caliph. According to Hawting, for the period between the end of the civil war and the years after Abd al-Malik's reign, al-Hajjaj became the "dominant figure" in the medieval sources, discussed more than the caliph himself." Same as above. This article is about Abd al-Malik, not Hajjaj. Summary style should be followed. Just introducing Hajjaj as "his most competent general" or something similar would suffice.
 * Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "The growing strain and heavy losses inflicted on the Syrians by the Caliphate's external enemies "led to the weakening and downfall of the Umayyads" in 750, according to Blankinship." You don't need to mention author here, as this is more or less a established fact. "Despite Abd al-Malik's victory over his Muslim rivals, the Umayyad Caliphate remained domestically and externally insecure, prompting a need to legitimize its existence.[30]" Here you do need to mention author, as this is opinion, not a fact.
 * Done. Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "According to medieval and modern-day sources, he spent the winter months mostly in..." Why do you need first fragment here?  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for looking this over once more after the GAN, your comments are always insightful. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Al Ameer for addressing the issues.
 * Note on sources (just to reduce the effort): I thoroughly checked for verifiability during GAN and found everything to be supported by the cited sources. A few issues were found and fixed. Some new sources have been added since then, two of these support the claims. Remaining one or two I haven't checked. (Note: this is regarding verifiability only.)  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support Ahmad, and appreciate the extra spot-checking. —Al Ameer (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * I'll have a look soon, some preliminary thoughts first. Armenia and Maslama are dulinked in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "a Euphrates river fortress strategically located at the crossroads of Syria and Iraq." Need citation.
 * Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think more names and terms could be linked in the image captions (at first occurrence).
 * Done (please check revisions though). Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Is this UK or US English? I see both "meager" (US) and "ise" endings (UK). Could be checked throughout.
 * US English. I couldn't find incidences of British spelling. Could you point one or two out to me? --Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, seems I may have misread something earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "who collectively became known as the "Yaman"" Explain why?
 * Do you mean why these unrelated (at best distantly related) tribes formed this alliance? - or why they called themselves the "Yaman"? I was trying to avoid too many details here since it's a somewhat complicated subject covered to an extent by the Qays–Yaman rivalry. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a brief explanation, that they are southern tribes, the other northern, or such. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I’ll add something along those lines later today or tomorrow. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I made some revisions that I think address this now. If anything, I could supplement the information with a footnote. Let me know what you think. Al Ameer (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Najdiyya Kharijites in Yamama in 692/93.[61][64] The Azariqa" I think you should specify that the latter were also Kharijites.
 * Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Link Khurasan in the article body too.
 * Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "for the return of the Cypriots" All Cypriots were deported? Sounds like a huge undertaking, anything to link?
 * Not sure. might have an answer here. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made some additions in this regard; the situation is rather unclear, but it appears that after Justinian II moved some of the Cypriots to Cyzicus and elsewhere in Anatolia, the Arabs moved others to Syria (although it is possible that the latter may have been prisoners form previous raids). Constantine  ✍  18:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Meanwhile, in the west" Maybe good to specify North Africa?
 * Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "when Abd al-Aziz died in May 705" From what?
 * As far as I know, the available sources don’t mention how he died. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Abd al-Malik died five months later" From what?
 * Always eluded me. The sources that I have access to (and they are many) don’t provide any details about the cause of his death. I assume he died the natural death of an aging man, but again there’s no source to support that. No reports of poison, illness, etc. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "boundaries of the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount)" Why use the Arabic name primarily? You don't do that for the dome of the rock.
 * Modified. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "She bore Abd al-Malik sons" The sons?
 * Fixed. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - looks great to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I just made some changes/additions to the Legacy section if you and wouldn’t mind reviewing them. Cheers. Al Ameer (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Constantine  ✍  11:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Verifiability: this seems to have been covered in the main prt of the review
 * Formats: mostly OK but a couple of minor points:
 * Ref 80: can you clarify this format? Is this two references?
 * Not too sure., could you clarify? —Al Ameer (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Any update on this? -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry Laser brain, I missed the previous ping. What exactly is the problem with ref #80 ("Lilie 1976, p. 140"), because I don't see how this could be "two references"? If you mean ref #81 ("PmbZ, 'Abd al-Malik (#18/corr.)"), it is correct: PmbZ links to the work reference in the sources section, and the relevant entry is linked to its online location. Constantine   ✍  08:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bibliography: It's probably best to be consistent in defining publishers - e.g in Bacharach and others we have "Brill" and in Becker and others we have "E.J. Brill"
 * A bit tricky. The sources with “E. J. Brill” are the Encyclopedia of Islam citations, which have their own template. Modifying the templates would have ramifications across hundreds of articles. The sources with just “Brill” are from the same publisher but all seem to be newer than the EoI and exclude the “E. J.” part. Any advice on what to do here? —Al Ameer (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a sticking point - in view of your explanation, no action needed, I'd say. Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality and reliability: the sources appear to be comprehensive, scholarly, and of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability.

Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)