Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Azaz (1030)/archive1

Battle of Azaz (1030)

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍  11:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a battle between the Byzantines and the Arabs of the Mirdasid emirate of Aleppo. Coming shortly after a period when Byzantine military might was at its highest under Basil II, the Byzantine army, under a vainglorious emperor, suffered a humiliating, although in the end not decisive, defeat. The article was co-developed by myself and Al Ameer son over the past few years, has passed GA and ACR, and is as complete as we can get it. Constantine  ✍  11:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
This is a splendid article and I expect to be supporting its elevation to FA, but first I have a few minor suggestions about the prose.
 * Lead
 * First sentence: you say here that the Byzantine army was led by the emperor "in person" but just that the opposing forces were "under" Emir Shibl al-Dawla Nasr. I see from the main text that the latter too led his troops in person, but that isn't altogether clear in the lead as it is currently phrased.
 * Good point. Hopefully fixed now.
 * I wondered at first what the strange r characters were before the dates: the pop-up "reign" is clever, but a little distracting, and I think unnecessary. If it is the usual form for such things, fine, but is it needed four times during the article?
 * Hmmm, you are the first one to complain about the reign template. I don't know if it is the "usual form", but generally I find providing the reader with regnal dates useful, as it gives a clue as to the interactions between the rulers and the position of the events described in their reign.
 * Ah, that is sensible, thanks. Done
 * Ah, that is sensible, thanks. Done

This looks like a long list of moans, but in fact I greatly enjoyed reading the article. I knew nothing of this period of history and learnt a lot. –  Tim riley  talk   13:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Second para: "the emperor" appears twice where a plain pronoun might move the text along more briskly with no loss of precision.
 * Done.
 * Background
 * I think I can guess what "confessional clashes" means, but it isn't a familiar phrase and could do with a note of explanation or else rephrasing in plain words.
 * Rephrased.
 * "According to medieval Arabic chroniclers Yahya of Antioch ... and Ibn al-Adim" – the tabloidese false title here could be avoided by the insertion of "the" before "medieval".
 * Fixed.
 * "that all of the above versions" – perhaps lose the unnecessary "of"?
 * Fixed.
 * "whom Romanos likely sought" – unexpected Americanism in a BrE article. The Guardian's style guide sums it up neatly: "In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as 'they will likely win the game' sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well."
 * Fixed. I blame the dominance of US-style English online and in media.
 * "might wrest the city from them due to their youthfulness" – another point of BrE usage. In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
 * Fixed.
 * "Zakkar claims the latter figure" – I'd be cautious with "claim": it can be read as implying that you think the assertion is false or in bad faith. Something more neutral such as "in Zakkar's view" might be safer. Similarly with Psellos, later.
 * Good point. Fixed.
 * Battle
 * "to reconnoiter the area." – the OED admits "reconnoiter", but favours "reconnoitre", as do I, but to each his own.
 * Let's go with the OED.
 * Second para – I think it would be better to decide whether "army" is singular or plural and stick to one or the other. At present we have "the army departed its camp" but "demoralized the Byzantine army and induced panic in their ranks".
 * Fixed.
 * "who was nearly captured himself" – not sure the "himself" is wanted here.
 * Fixed.
 * Aftermath
 * "an annual tribute of 500,000 dirhams" – I realise it is terribly difficult to give even faintly approximate modern equivalents of ancient currencies, but is it possible to put 500,000 dirhams into context as, e.g. x per cent of the imperial income or some such? Quite understand if not, but it would be helpful if possible.
 * Usually I'm the one insisting on this with sums of money, so I understand. Unfortunately here it is rather complicated, as the Musim and Byzantine coins were similar but not identical in weight, and as the Muslim rate of exchange between silver and gold coins (from a canonical 1:10, it more usually ranged from 1:14 up to 1:20) was different to the Byzantine one (1:12). My co-author Al Ameer son has added an approximate value in dinars, but the rate (1:60) is clearly wrong, especially if it is meant to echo the Treaty of Safar, which used the plausible 1:16 rate of exchange. Even if we provide a rough analogy in gold dinars by that value (31,250) and ignore for a moment that the dinar was usually a little lighter than the Byzantine nomisma, unfortunately there is no basis for even a half-reliable estimate on the Byzantine budget in the 11th century. I've seen figures from 3 million to 6 million gold coins, but even there the authors acknowledge that this is extrapolation and speculation from the far better attested Abbasid state budget. Perhaps the most useful figure I've found is that 1-2 dirhams per day were the salary of a skilled worker or soldier in the 9th century during the Abbasid heyday, although how far this is applicable to a border emirate in 1030 is open to question, given the fluctuations in silver coinage availability affecting the post-imperial Muslim states. I don't know how to proceed here, I would like to avoid a lengthy explanation. What do you think would work best?
 * I hardly dare express a view, so little do I know of the period. If you think any of the above would be helpful to readers – perhaps as an explanatory footnote – that would be excellent, but having raised the point I really feel I should leave it to your best judgment.  Tim riley  talk   19:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The figure I cited could very well be a typo in Zakkar's translation of Yahya of Antioch's work, with "60" (sitīn in Arabic) being mistaken for 16 (sitta'ash). It wouldn't be the first translation typo that I've spotted in the same source. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, and don't worry, I appreciate a thorough review. I've tried to fix/answer the points you raised above. Please have a look. Any further comments and suggestions, even regardless of FA requirements, would be welcome. Constantine  ✍  18:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to support. As noted, I am very far from expert about the subject, but so far as I can see the article is comprehensive, balanced (I note 's points below, but I do not feel myself competent to express a view) and well and widely referenced. The article is well illustrated and an excellent read, and I am happy to support.  Tim riley  talk   19:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from PM
Placeholder, will wait until you've addressed Tim's points before I stick my oar in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Great job with this, although I know nothing of this period, it reads well and I could only find a few minor things:
 * battle of al-Uqhuwanah→Battle of al-Uqhuwanah and redlink?
 * Done, in hopeful expectation...


 * suggest "Banu Kilab tribe"
 * Good point, done


 * suggest linking tribute and vassal
 * Done

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Peacemaker67, done. Anything else? Constantine  ✍  15:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Supporting, nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from HaEr48 (support)
This is an excellent, well-written and well-researched article. The background section gives adequate information to situate a new reader on the topic, and major events are covered in prelude and battle. It is written in an accessible manner and I enjoy reading it. I have some small comments:


 * Infobox "Result" say "Arab victory", is there any reason that we don't say more the specific "Mirdasid victory" or "Aleppine victory"? In the infobox, none of the "belligerents" say "Arab". It may not be obvious to the uninitiated, and in any case it's good to be specific.
 * Done.
 * "presence in Romanos's entourage of Mansur ibn Lu'lu', the former ruler of Aleppo": is Mansur from the same dynasty, or is he the Mirdasid's former enemy, or ?
 * Clarified.
 * Is it possible to discuss more on the Mirdasid's side of the story, e.g. their planning, motivation, or notable events that happened during the preparation or the battle? We get a lot of this regarding the Byzantines, e.g. how the emperor was planning the campaign, his motivations, how the general advised him, some little details such as the army going hungry and disciplines breaking down, siege engines having to be burned, and so on. I know it's probably impossible to achieve complete balance if the sources are not equally complete, but seeing that you are already several Arab historians here, I wonder if we have anything more?
 * Access to these primary sources is limited but sufficient info from them is found in Zakkar's Emirate of Aleppo and Bianquis' EI2 entry on the Mirdasids. There's info about the Mirdasids' preparations in the third paragraph of the Prelude section and about Arab troop numbers in the fourth paragraph. More information has since been added about the strength and tactics/mode of operations of the Banu Kilab cavalry in Background and Prelude. The aftermath from the Arabs' side has been slightly expanded as well. As for their motivations, the article demonstrates they sought to avoid hostilities and only confronted the imperial army to defend their realm. Other than what's currently in the article, there's not much more available about the Arab side. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As Al Ameer wrote, unfortunately the battle is known chiefly from the Byzantine sources. What we could find about the Arab side, has been added; to Al Ameer especially goes the credit here.

-- HaEr48 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's just me, but I feel the lead section a bit dominated by the Byzantines' point of view. The second para is almost totally written from the Byzantines' view, and more than half of the third para too. Could we balance it somehow?
 * As stated above, that rather reflects the situation of the sources, which allows us an insight into Romanos' mind (and even multiple variants thereof), whereas the Mirdasids are almost faceless. I've rewritten the lede somewhat, however, in view of your comments and some recent additions by Al Ameer. Please have a look.
 * Thanks for taking the time and for the suggestions/comments. I've tried to address them, please have a look. Constantine  ✍  16:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, "almost faceless" is the right word. But I understand your explanation about it. I thought because I'm already seeing some Arab chroniclers attributed in the article, we could have more. I think what you and Al Ameer added made it less faceless, so thank you. I'll read the article one more time and will add here if I have more comments. HaEr48 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately AFAIK the later Arab chroniclers don't go into so much detail as Psellos, who after all was a contemporary, a senior courtier, and an inveterate gossip to boot...
 * I suggest adding one more sentence to the first para of lead to summarise the battle and result, something like "The Mirdasids defeated the much larger Byzantine army and took great booty, even though they were eventually unable to capitalise on the victory". I think it's fair for the first para to be a very high-level summary and only the next para starts chronologically. HaEr48 (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point HaEr48, done.
 * I'm happy to support this, and thank you for your responses. Great work, and . HaEr48 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and input, HaEr48. Constantine  ✍  17:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Mr rnddude
I still owe a couple FA reviews, and I've been eye-ing this article up for one of those.
 * Lede
 * ... and attempts to break out were defeated - This conflicts with the article proper. You only mention one attack by the Byzantines in the article – The patrikios Constantine Dalassenos then led an attack against the Arabs, but was defeated and fled back to the camp – and this doesn't appear to be a break out, as described in the lede, but more an attempted assault.
 * Good catch, fixed
 * ... the disordered Byzantines, and the ensuing engagement resulted in a rout for the Byzantines - You can cut the duplication of "Byzantines" and tighten the prose by rephrasing to something like ... the disordered Byzantines, who routed in the ensuing engagement.
 * Rewritten and tightened


 * Aftermath
 * In the meantime, ... - you can spare a couple words by using meanwhile here. Just a nitpick.
 * Done
 * The failure by the Romanos ... - stray "the", I suspect this originally read "by the Byzantines".
 * Done
 * ... was followed soon after by ... - is "soon after" necessary here? It seems superfluous.
 * Indeed. Removed


 * General
 * You have a mixture of " s' " and " s's " in the article. Use either, but be consistent.
 * Hmmm, I can only find instances of " s' " in the plural, which is as it should be.

That's all I picked up on, on first read through. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude, thanks a lot, the suggestions above have been implemented. Anything else? How is the comprehensibility etc. of the article? Constantine  ✍  15:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've re-read the article. I had no issue with comprehending the subject matter, beyond the occasional Greek term, but these have all been linked. I didn't notice anything else, so I'm switching to support. It's an excellent, if brief, article. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass

 * The source of "The Arabs drive the Byzantines to flight at Azazion.jpg" links to a 492 page document. Could you specify the page please.
 * Likewise "Emperor Romanos III encamps at Azazion.jpg".
 * Optional: consider alt text for the location map, if only to be consistent with the other images.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Gog, done. Constantine  ✍  16:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licenced. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Emirate of Aleppo had been a Byzantine vassal Link the Emirate of Aleppo.
 * Relinked
 * I see two howevers I think one is good enough because it's really small for two howevers (little too small in my opinion).
 * Both howevers are rather unnecessary, so removed.
 * Although his generals urged him to avoid action Remove the extra space between "urged" and "him".
 * Done, although this is not actually visible to the reader, only in Wikitext
 * leading in person the campaign against Aleppo --> "leading in-person the campaign against Aleppo"
 * I am not sure that is correct... As a non-native speaker, I may be wrong, but I've never seen this usage before, in contrast to "in person".
 * May I ask you why the source of Zakkar uses a Google Books's URL? By WP:GBOOKS we only should add a Google Books's URL to a book who gives us a preview.
 * Don't know, this was added by Al Ameer son in 2016. It often happens that GBooks links stop working or change over time, so that a link that gave a preview no gives only snippets or nothing. Still, I think that a link is useful to have, even for snippets.
 * PS, I just now notice that WP:GBOOKS is about linking to individual pages, which is definitely not the case here. Constantine  ✍  12:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GBOOKS also uses Google Books' URL in a book cite in case the pages aren't linked. Sorry for the delay I am really struggling my free time on Wikipedia. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries CPA-5, just checking, take your time. Re WP:GBOOKS, that's not what I see. The section is explicitly headed "Linking to Google Books pages" and says "Page links should only be added when the book is available for preview", because "they will not work with snippet view." This is quite beside the point here, where a link for the entire work is provided. Even if it only allows snippets, the existence of a Google Books link is a good thing for WP:VERIFICATION purposes. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  14:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well yes but WP:GBOOKS uses it as an example how Google Books's URL should looks like. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I honestly can't see where you get that from. It is explicit and specific on pages in inline references etc., it is not about "how Google Books's URL should looks like". Anyhow, since we are probably not going to agree on this, is this really something that is should hold up this nomination? Constantine  ✍  21:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not describe this one as a major issue (almost no one use Google Books link in the pages) in the article so sure I can give you my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Change the "~20,000" in the infobox into "c. 20,000".
 * Done
 * Hi CPA-5, thanks for taking the time. I've answered your points. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  12:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * a friendly reminder. Constantine  ✍  12:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources review
Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Formats: Checked, no issues found
 * Quality/reliability: no issues. All sources appear to meet the standard required by the FA criteria.

-- Laser brain  (talk)  10:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)