Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2015.

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍  20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an ambitious and capable Turkish soldier, whose tumultuous career in the collapsing Abbasid Caliphate led him to become the ruler of Egypt in 935–946 and founder of a dynasty that ruled much of the Middle East until 969. The article relies heavily on Jere L. Bacharach's 1975 monograph, which is the most comprehensive study to date, but complements this with several other related sources. It passed a thorough GA review and had a very smooth MILHIST A-Class review, with only minor additions/tweaks since then, so I feel confident that it meets FA criteria. Constantine  ✍  20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned, though the maps are a bit difficult to read at that text size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comment  -- recusing from coord duties, I reviewed/supported at MilHist A-Class Review and, having checked all additions/changes since then, reiterate the gist of what I said there:
 * Although I know very little about the period in question, the content seems well-written, comprehensive, neutrally presented, and reasonably easy to follow.
 * Image licensing looks good to me.
 * Source-wise, again given the caveat of not being an expert, the references seem reliable enough.
 * Just one thing re. a post-ACR addition: He played a major role in the Qarmatian attack on Damascus in 903; although defeated in battle, he held the city for seven months thereafter until the arrival of reinforcements from Egypt that defeated the Qarmatians -- not sure I quite follow this so pls confirm for me and perhaps we can reword a bit... he was defeated in his particular battle of the Qarmatian attack on Damascus, but the attack as a whole was successful, and he was the given charge of Damascus with a Qarmatian garrison that was eventually defeated by the Egyptian reinforcements? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Ian and thanks for the review! I've rephrased the section in question: the Qarmatians defeated Tughj in battle outside Damascus, but he was nevertheless able to hold the city against them until such time as reinforcements arrived. Constantine  ✍  16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah-ha, I'd got the impression he was on the side of the Qarmatians! I think your wording when it was at ACR, mentioning him "repelling" the Qarmatians, made clear whose side he was on ("major role in the attack" is ambiguous at best). Your latest reword is a bit clearer but could it be tweaked thus and still reflect the sources: "He played a major role in repelling the Qarmatian attack on Damascus in 903; although defeated in battle, he held the city for seven months until, with the help of reinforcements from Egypt, he drove the Qarmatians away"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased it again. It should be clear now. Thanks a lot! Constantine  ✍  14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Support this excellent article, with a few quibbles:
 * In "Takeover of Egypt": "This view is reinforced by the fact that after the fall of Mu'nis..." "By the fact that" always stands out as clumsy to me. Maybe this could be "This theory also explains why, after the fall of Mu'nis, al-Qahir sent a eunuch called Bushri to replace Ibn Tughj in Damascus as well." Or something like that? If you can't make it work, don't worry about it. Just a minor point.
 * Under "Conflict with Ibn Ra'iq": "Once more, the Egyptian ruler led his army in person to battle" probably doesn't need "in person". Similarly, in "Conflict with the Hamdanids", "The latter immediately responded by leading an army in person into Syria." -- "leading" assumes "in person," doesn't it? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for taking the time to review this. On the first point, how about "The fact that al-Qahir sent a eunuch called Bushri to replace Ibn Tughj in Damascus after the fall of Mu'nis reinforces this view."? On the second, indeed it does. I've removed it. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  17:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's good, but you could even lose the first two words, I think. "That al-Qahir sent..." --Coemgenus (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, now it doesn't sound to good to me ;). I'll change it per my suggestion above. Constantine  ✍  20:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley
 * I would move one of the maps up so that it is immediately below the infobox.
 * To what purpose?
 * " the autonomous ruler of Egypt and parts of Syria" and "al-Ikhshid was engaged in conflicts with other regional strongmen for control over Syria, without which Egypt was vulnerable to invasion from the east". I find these comments puzzling. Syria is distant from Egypt, so did he rule two separated areas, or are you using a different medieval definition of the location of Syria? If so, this should be explained. What does invasion from the east mean? From Turkey?
 * Syria is clearly linked as referring to the greater area of Syria or the Levant. In literature on the period, "Syria" is generally used in this way, and I find it hard to believe that anyone would assume that the text could be referring to the modern state of Syria in its modern boundaries. On invasion from the east, it is clearly stated that this is about Egypt: hence an invasion from, or through, the Levant (and Sinai), as has happened multiple times in its history. Turkey (which also did not exist at the time) is in the north, not the east.
 * " Although he was initially in control of the entire region, he was forced to cede the northern half" This is also confusing? The entire region should include northern Egypt, but in the next sentence you seem to be referring only to northern Syria.
 * I do not thing that someone with a basic knowledge of geography might be confused about this, but I have clarified it nonetheless.
 * " managed to obtain for himself an appointment as governor of Palestine from Baghdad; the incumbent, al-Rashidi, fled the governor's seat at Ramla for Damascus, whose governorship he assumed" I am not sure what you mean here. Was he appointed to expel the existing governor? Was Ramla the capital of Palestine? If so, this should be clarified.
 * Pretty much, yes. Given the predatory nature of Abbasid politics at the time, it is not surprising: once a faction gained ascendancy at court, it appointed its own people. Their rivals fled, or were tortured for money, etc. Going into details about this is a bit superfluous to the article, but you certainly understood correctly. As for Ramla, "governor's seat" equals capital.
 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am awaiting further comments/requests for clarification. Constantine  ✍  19:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * |Hi! A small reminder :) Constantine  ✍  13:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In view of the tone of your replies I do not think I can usefully contribute. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? I value any and all input, but you can't expect me to agree with everything... And really, a glance at the map(s) should suffice to clarify the first couple of concerns you raised. I really think it redundant to have to explain that Syria in the 10th century is not Syria of the 21st century... Constantine  ✍  19:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Support: Constantine, since I had previously reviewed this article for Good Article status at Talk:Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid/GA1 and passed it for meeting Good Article criteria, I felt that it was only fitting for me to weigh in here regarding the article's passage to Featured Article status. I have reviewed the changes made to this article since its GAN, and I find that this article easily meets Featured article criteria, as it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable, and its lead meets the criteria outlined at Manual of Style/Lead section. There is no more comprehensive illustration of al-Ikhshid in existence. Thank you for your hard work on this article, and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia. -- West Virginian   (talk)  23:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments from West Virginian
 * Thank you for your review and your kind comments. Aside from FA criteria adherence, if there are any suggestions, however minor, for improvement, please let me know! Constantine  ✍  11:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  00:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.