Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nizar ibn al-Mustansir/archive1

Nizar ibn al-Mustansir

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍  15:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a Fatimid prince who should have become imam and caliph at the death of his father, al-Mustansir, in 1094, but was thwarted by the machinations of the powerful vizier al-Afdal. Nizar led a revolt in Alexandria, but was ultimately defeated and killed. Given the close intertwining of religious and political leadership in the Fatimid-sponsored Isma'ili faith, this succession dispute also caused one of the major rifts in Isma'ilism, with the supporters of Nizar (among whom were the famous Assassins) breaking off to form the Nizari sect, against the supporters of the puppet caliph, al-Mu'stali. The article was rewritten from scratch in January 2020, and became GA shortly after. It has been edited with some slight additions and improvements since. I think that by now it is comprehensive enough for FA. I also hope that it provides sufficient context to the uninitiated reader, but of course any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine  ✍  15:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review

 * The succession diagram is not currently legible - suggest presenting this using a chart template rather than as an image
 * I've created Template:Nizari-Hafizi-Tayyibi schism and used that instead.
 * Don't use fixed px size
 * Done, since no image is now used apart from the infobox.
 * File:1a_Fatimid_Coin_of_Imam_Nizar.jpg: can we confirm the institute has released the image under that license? Also a tag for the coin itself will be needed
 * That is a good question. I have sent an email to the IIS and am awaiting a reply.
 * File:Shiite_Calligraphy_symbolising_Ali_as_Tiger_of_God.svg: what's the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The original png is properly licensed, but the question is whether the png creator also drew the design. Such zoomorphic representations of Ali are fairly common for centuries now, however, and given that the image has been online on WP since 2008, I don't know that we can trace it. I am pinking the original user,, just in case. Constantine  ✍  13:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's been two weeks now, and no response to my email. How shall we proceed? The coin designitself is obviously PD (old and non-original design), and IIRC coins are considered two-dimensional works of art, hence their photos fall under PD-Art (I've added the tag to the file), so the copyright situation should be clear (unless I am mistaken). On the calligraphy file, I don't know how to best proceed. Constantine  ✍  10:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PD-art cannot be used for coins - see commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag. As for the calligraphy, can a pre-2008 model be located? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, then I will remove the coin image pending a possible reply, as its copyright status is unclear. On the calligraphy, I just found the original from as Sotheby's action. Anonymous, Persia 19th/20th century, I suppose it qualifies as PD. Constantine  ✍  14:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * a small reminder :) Constantine  ✍  11:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The calligraphy image needs tagging reflecting the status of the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

what would be appropriate here? It is PD in Iran, per this, but I have no idea what would apply for the US for an anonymous work published in the 19th or early 20th century. Constantine  ✍  14:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If it was published then, PD-US-expired should apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, added, along with the PD-Iran tag. Constantine  ✍  15:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from 54129 BC

 * Suggest paragraphing the lead, a possible break is at /Many Isma'ilis, especially in Persia. Also tweak the first sentence of which, it's quite complex :)
 * Good point, done.


 * "Internal turmoils led the dynasty close" -- something like "Internal turmoil threatened the dynasty..." or something.
 * Rephrased.


 * "Likely involved" -- you mean in its planning, or that he was sent elsewhere as well? If the latter, then you've already said the sons were being scattered.
 * Changed, hopefully clearer now. I also discovered that I had not associated this event with the one mentioned later on, which are actually the same. Now fixed, hopefully without making it more convoluted than the whole succession affair already is. ;)


 * "This flight" -- their absence/disappearance etc
 * Rephrased.


 * " by attempting to appoint another to the vizierate" -- this sounds redundant to me? As you've already said he was a figurehead.
 * Good point, removed.

"In 1022, al-Mu'stali's son and successor, al-Amir (r. 1101–1130), issued a public proclamation, the al-Hidāya al-Āmiriyya, to defend his father's succession and counter the claims of Nizar's partisans. He put forth a number of arguments, such as the fact that when al-Mustansir sent his sons to the army, he did so by rank, those closest to Cairo being the highest. Abu Abdallah was to go to Acre, Abu'l-Qasim Muhammad (father of the Caliph al-Hafiz) to Ascalon, Nizar to Damietta, while al-Musta'li was not allowed to leave the palace." There's a few linkable things in their too?
 * "In 1022, al-Mu'stali's son...not even allowed to leave the palace" is a massive sentence, combining both colons and semicolons. Perhaps
 * You mean the various princes? Unfortunately they are mostly names to us, we don't have much information about them other than what is included here.


 * If someone is immured, aren't they inevitably alive? Also—if you happen to know—was he later reinterred after the eventual collapse of the regime? (Or any other time of course.)
 * True, and no, unfortunately, but very unlikely. The Fatimid regime was very anti-Nizari until its end, and its successors were Sunnis, with little interest in an Isma'ili pretender's burial place.


 * New sentence at "A grand assembly of officials..."?
 * Done.


 * Might want to use a WP:NBSP at "as a ruler [...] it was the"
 * Done.


 * Avoid "to this day" per MOS:REALTIME.
 * Done.


 * " heralded the final decline " --- "final" is unnecessary here as it preceded an "eventual collapse".
 * Removed.


 * Thanks for this, nice article.  SN54129  16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks a lot for your review, and I am glad you liked it! I've tried to address the points you raised, and have had to make some rewrites as to the dispersal of the princes. Please have another look. Constantine  ✍  14:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Very nicely done,, and thanks for the interesting points you made here, very informative.  SN54129  14:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.


 * "a deep-seated enmity between the two men". Which two men? Of the three just mentioned.
 * Fixed.


 * "would preclude him from being sent to the army either way." What does "either way" mean in this context?
 * This has been removed in a rewrite about the sending of the princes away from Cairo, please have a look.


 * "Ibn Masal abandoned the city with most of the remaining treasure". Just checking that you mean that he abandoned both the city and the treasure.
 * Indeed no. Rephrased.


 * "where they formed a sort of opposition in exile". Not a Government in exile?
 * No, there was no such attempt. None of Nizar's known sons is attested to have claimed the caliphal title or designated ministers etc.


 * "dāʿı̄s and ḥujjas ('seals, proofs')." Should that be 'dāʿı̄s and ḥujjas ('seals', 'proofs').'?
 * hujja means 'seal' or 'proof', da'i simply means missionary, as explained further above. Rephrased slightly to avoid confusion.
 * I have added some colour above to try and emphasise the change I was suggesting.
 * Ah, of course. Fixed.

An excellent article. I expected no less. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and the kind words,, it means a lot. I've addressed the issues you raised, anything else? Constantine  ✍  15:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One minor issue above outstanding, but insufficient to prevent my supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Constantine  ✍  16:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

 * I'm not keen on "(see below)" in article text; I think it would be better to give a very brief parenthetical gloss, and then give the details later in the succession section.
 * Indeed. Done.


 * "In 1022, al-Mu'stali's son and successor, al-Amir (r. 1101–1130), issued a public proclamation": presumably a typo for 1122? I tried checking other articles but I see the same date is given in Al-Musta'li
 * Yes, of course. Fixed.


 * Reading the first paragraph of the succession section, I didn't immediately realize that the enmity between Nizar and al-Afdal might have only been of a few months duration. According to our article on him, Badr al-Jamali's date of death is known; any reason not to use that?  Do we know if the machinations that al-Maqrizi refers to were before or after Badr's death?  The description of al-Afdal attempting to enter the palace on horseback refers to him as "the vizier", so it seems to be afterwards.  If any of this can be recast in a more linear chronological way I think it would help readers unfamiliar with the material.  Then "who himself had only recently succeeded" would be unnecessary, for example.
 * Good point. Have rewritten this part.


 * "whose birth had been publicly announced in 1160": surely 1060?
 * Yes, fixed. Thanks.


 * "In November, Ibn Masal": it's been a while since Ibn Masal was mentioned; how about a word or two to give the reader context? Maybe "In November, Nizar's military commander Ibn Masal" if that's an accurate description?
 * Good suggestion, done.


 * What's a writ of safety?
 * Rephrased and clarified.


 * "but the events surrounding al-Musta'li's accession was the first time": needs rephrasing; "events" is plural, but "were" won't work because the object is "the first time".
 * Deleted 'the events surrounding' as superfluous


 * "a convenient excuse to rid himself of Cairo's tutelage": I don't think "tutelage" is the best word here; it does mean a position of authority but has connotations of instruction. Perhaps just "rule"?
 * Replaced with 'control'.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the very good suggestions. I think I've addressed them. Anything else? Constantine   ✍  10:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

 * Someone rang for a source review??
 * The one source in German shows a suitable number of academic libraries in the US holding it so it meets the test of being a high quality source. World Cat results
 * All the other sources are from suitable academic publishers and presumably by experts in the field or they wouldn't be published by the publishers...
 * It looks like "Walker, Paul E. (1995). "Succession to Rule in the Shiite Caliphate"." is actually "Walker, Paul E., Walker, Paul (1995). "Succession to Rule in the Shiite Caliphate"." according to JSTOR? But the top page of the article just says "Paul E. Walker"... odd...
 * Spot checks (since I'm here...)
 * "Over the following decades, the Nizaris were among the most bitter enemies of the Musta'li rulers of Egypt." is sourced to Stern 1950 p. 20, which it supports.
 * "Given the pivotal role of the imam in the Isma'ili faith, this was of momentous importance: the issue of succession was not merely a matter of political intrigue, but also intensely religious. In the words of Stern, "on it depended the continuity of institutional religion as well as the personal salvation of the believer"." is sourced to Stern 1951 p. 194 which it supports (not just the quote, but the preceeding sentence also)
 * "There are indications that another of Nizar's sons, named Muhammad, left for Yemen." is sourced to Walker p. 256 which it supports.
 * I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
 * The one weirdness should not hold up promotion (it may just be JSTOR being .. weird... )
 * Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can't explain the JSTOR discrepancy, likely some error in data input. Paul Walker is well known in the field, and is obviously the same person as Paul E. Walker. Constantine  ✍  10:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Support by AhmadLX
Seems very interesting. Just a few points below.
 * In the 2nd para of "Life" little background is given of the turmoil, but the detail of which princes were sent to which places (which to me seems irrelevant) is given with detail.
 * Agreed, this is a discrepancy. The sending of the princes is important in so far as it was used in the pro-Musta'li polemics later on, so it should be mentioned. On the turmoil, I will add a brief summary as soon as I can.
 * Added a very brief summary of the crisis and its reasons. Constantine  ✍  10:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "until the Armenian commander Badr al-Jamali assumed power in 1073". At the first reading, it seems as if he was a commander in the Armenia region and seems weird that he became Fatimid vizier. Only after hovering over the link does it become clear. Maybe you should note that he was Fatimid commander of Armenian ethnicity. Also, that he was Armenian and a commander is given at the second mention; the first mention occurs without context and one wonders "who was he".
 * I've stricken the Armenian part as it is irrelevant, but I have linked Badr now at the first occurrence.
 * al-Hidāya al-Āmiriyya → al-Hidaya al-Amiriyya; dāʿı̄ → da'i; qāḍī → qadi; al-Muṣṭafā li-Dīn Allāh → al-Mustafa li-Din Allah; amān → aman; daʿwa → da'wa; daʿwa jadīda → da'wa jadida; ḥujja → hujja; naṣṣ → nass; ʿiṣma → isma
 * Done.
 * "According to the historian Paul Walker..."; later on you call him "the historian Paul E. Walker" as if they were two different persons.
 * Fixed.
 * " In the words of Stern..." Please introduce him.
 * Done.
 * The historian Paul Walker in the first footnote links to the American actor ;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Standardized to 'Paul E. Walker' throughout, per the name in the references section.
 * Constantine? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi I've dealt with most of the issues above.  thanks for the ping, will need a little time to add some context as required. Constantine   ✍  14:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think I've now dealt with all issues above. Constantine  ✍  10:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Constantine. Support. A very nice and informative article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and comments :) Constantine   ✍  16:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm Talk 14:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)