Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sayf al-Dawla/archive1

Sayf al-Dawla

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍  15:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is about one of the best-known Muslim rulers of the Middle Ages, a man who epitomized the Arab warrior-poet prince, fighting for his faith in vain against greater odds while assembling a culturally brilliant court, albeit at the expense of an oppressive fiscal regime that impoverished his domains. The article has been written gradually over several years, until it has become quite comprehensive. It passed MILHIST A-class in December 2022, and I feel it is ready for its FA star. As always, I am looking forward to any comments for further improvements. Constantine  ✍  15:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Image review—pass per ACR (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Support from Iazyges
Reviewed this at ACR recently, happy to support as FA quality. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  17:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the vote of confidence, :). Constantine   ✍  16:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Funk

 * I'll have a look soon. I see a bunch of duplinks at first glance. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've fixed the duplinks, the remaining couple are from the quote box in 'Cultural activity and legacy'. Looking forward to your review. Constantine  ✍  16:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Only later in the article is it stated he promoted Shia Islam, but nowhere is it stated if he was born into a Shia family or converted, could be stated explicitly in the origin section.
 * Added an explanation: the Hamdanids themselves were mostly Shi'a (or at least pro-Shi'a), but the distinction is not so clear-cut in the early 9th century.
 * "During his reign, the founder of the Alawite sect" Could be stated for context that this is an offshoot of Shia Islam.
 * Done.
 * In the origin section you say "Sayf al-Dawla's father Abdallah", but in the succeeding sentence you refer to him as Ali. I wonder if it would be best to consistently call him Ali until the point where he took the other name?
 * Done.
 * The article body only says" Ali was named governor of Wasit and was awarded the laqab of Sayf al-Dawla ('Sword of the Dynasty'), by which he became famous" without specifying if this was also when he started to be called by this name.
 * Related to the above "receiving the honorific (laqab) of Nasir al-Dawla ('Defender of the Dynasty'), by which he is best known", when and how where the names "fused"?
 * Hmmm, I am not sure I understand the problem here. The brothers were awarded a honorific, by which they are chiefly known to posterity. Naturally, they can not have been known to contemporaries by that honorific beforehand; and the honorific did not replace their original names, it was added to them. So Ali's full name became 'Sayf al-Dawla Ali ibn Abu'l-Hayja Abdallah etc etc', but could be referred to as 'Sayf al-Dawla al-Hamdani' ('Sayf al-Dawla the Hamdanid') for short. Without going into an aside into the intricacies of Arabic names, I don't know what is actionable here.
 * Perhaps say "by which he became famous and known as for posterity" to clarify? FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  17:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You link some ethnicities, but not others, such as Arab, Turkish, and Iranian.
 * Indeed, done.
 * Shouldn't Turkish be Turkic in this context?
 * Both terms can be used, but the potential for confusion with the Anatolian Turks is there, so changed to 'Turkic'
 * Hi Constantine, are you actioning these? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, , sorry for the delay, I have addressed most points, and otherwise answered above. Constantine  ✍  11:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "and marked the beginning the gradual Byzantine encroachment on"
 * Fixed.
 * Link Nasir al-Dawla in the infobox caption?
 * Done.
 * "Thus, in 961, the emir of Tarsus, Ibn az-Zayyat, unsuccessfully tried to turn over his province to the Abbasids. In 963, his nephew, the governor of Harran, Hibat Allah" A bit confusing,when reading it first I thought "his nephew" referred to the aforementioned Ibn az-Zayyat being the uncle, but reading further, it seems it was Nasir al-Dawla's nephew. Could be clarified by stating whose nephew it was by name.
 * Good catch, corrected and rephrased.
 * "the death of two of his sons, Abu'l-Maqarim and Abu'l-Baraqat." Death by what?
 * The source does not say.
 * "where he died on 8 or 9 February" By what?
 * Unknown, but it is stated that he suffered from poor health for years before hand. For medieval individuals, it is difficult to know the precise cause ether way.
 * "funeral prayers in Shi'a fashion" This link to Shi'a is now a duplink.
 * Fixed.
 * "If Sayf al-Dawla paid special favour to poets, his court contained scholars versed in religious studies, history, philosophy and astronomy as well, so that, as S. Humphreys comments, "in his time Aleppo could certainly have held its own with any court in Renaissance Italy"" I'm not sure why this starts with "if"?
 * It makes sense ("If...as well") but probably isn't the most fortunate turn of phrase. Have simplified it.
 * "He also erected a mausoleum to one of al-Husayn's sons, Muhassin, outside the city walls of Aleppo and close to a Christian monastery, called the Mashhad al-Dikka.[98][86] In the aftermath of the 962 sack of Aleppo, he invited Alid sharifs from Qum and Harran to settle in his capital." The last person mentioned was Al-Khasibi, so clarify whether you mean Sayf al-Dawla here.
 * Fixed.
 * Thanks, your comments have been taken care of. Anything else? Constantine  ✍  17:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - looking good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The text states he died on 8 or 9 February, but the lead and infobox say only 9 February - why?
 * Converting Islamic dates to Gregorian ones is a bit inexact and dates often vary by one day, especially in older sources. The EI2 had 9 February, which was the original but the TDV Encyclopedia of Islam had 8 February, and I forgot to update the lede and infobox accordingly. I have now checked with other sources and the correct date should be 8 February. For further clarity I also added the Islamic dates.
 * Edition statements should generally be presented separate from titles
 * Except when they are part of the title. Don't ask me why, but that is the preferred style for citing the Encyclopaedia of Islam, I guess because the different editions are in essence completely separate works.
 * Can you explain the formatting of the Larkin source? It's not clear to me what's going on
 * Ooops. Fixed now.
 * What makes BEÜ İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi a high-quality reliable source?
 * Another user added that. I have left it in as it comes from the Journal of Theology Faculty of Bulent Ecevit University, and the author is a university professor. I cannot otherwise vouch for its credentials.
 * Hi, I've addressed your remarks. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  17:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
Afternoon Constantine. You need to pay a bit more attention to this if it is not to slide off the queue. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, the latest comments are from two days ago, and I was about to address these comments today. I don't think I am too late in responding, especially as I was waiting for Funk to finish reviewing. Constantine  ✍  16:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My review is now finished (took me longer than usual due to lack of time), so should be ready for responses. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Support from Vami
Reserving a spot. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  10:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Here we go.


 * Suggest "Muslim-controlled" territories. Islamic rule of those lands was by this point a very settled and concrete matter, but without the "-controlled" a reader unfamiliar with this topic may be left starved of some context to the "reconquer"; the other solution to this is longer-form, a la "a resurgent Byzantine Empire that in the early 10th century began to (re)conquer territories occupied by Muslim powers since the 8th century."
 * Have rephrased a bit, and removed the 'reconquer' part; the context necessary for using this verb is not currently in the article, and would be beside the point.
 * I do not recommend "superior" here; it suggests bias. State plainly the advantages the Byzantines had. If something is superior then something must be inferior, and we're both aware of the importance of this era of history to the current culture war.
 * Was never meant as such, just 'militarily superior', but you are right. Have rephrased.
 * Add a date, for context?
 * Done.
 * MOS:SEASON
 * MOS:SEASON is IMO inapplicable here. I understand its purpose, but a) it should be obvious, in an article referring to the 10th century, that we can not possibly be speaking about the southern hemisphere, and b) the medieval sources often don't provide exact dates, and often just imply things, leaving modern scholars to conjecture about something happening in spring, because that is when campaigning season began.
 * Condense this.
 * Done.
 * Recommend adding "warlord" after "Kurd" to signify before that final clause that this is a person, not an entity or office.
 * Done.
 * Can you add a date for this?
 * Rewrote this section and added a source.
 * Would if not suffice to just use "Thughur" here?
 * Indeed, simplified.
 * "after" superfluous here.
 * Are you sure? It doesn't sound correct in my head... It is effectively 'The town fell soon after he was forced to abandon the campaign'...
 * Who is being discussed here?
 * Nadja. Clarified.
 * What is "nevertheless" contradicting here? The illness and loss of prestige? In that case, why not just cut that and start the sentence with "Despite"?
 * Indeed, removed.
 * This is the first time any famine in this province is mentioned.
 * Changed to 'a famine'
 * Meaning to resettle it with Christians, right?
 * Not only... Have added some details.
 * Recommend "from 962 to 966".
 * Done.
 * This just repeats the final sentence of #Life; I recommend condensing it.
 * Good point, done.

Good work. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  01:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for the excellent suggestions, they have been done. Anything else that might need improvement, even beyond and apart from FA requirements? Constantine  ✍  12:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied now, except for the lack of alt text for the images. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  13:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, can't believe I forgot that. Thanks, added now. Constantine  ✍  14:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent; supporting now. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  17:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Src rv
Standing by, Gold Leader. SN54129 15:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Note that, non obstante WP:DCGAR, I will be assuming good faith as to the two Turkish and single Arabic sources; spot checks not done.
 * Formatting
 * Ibn Khallikan (1842), needs an oclc identifier.
 * Done
 * Likewise two of your 'Further reading' Canards need identifiers.
 * Done
 * Nature
 * High-quality sources; only one book and two articles from pre-1970s. The books are all published by reputable authors, publishers or university presses, from broad, general encyclopedic works to discrete treatments. A search of the relevant databases reveals no works omitted one would expect to find, and while 'Further reading' contains several works, non appear specifically germane to the topic. Their usage would provide, I suggest, further context and background, but this must be weighed critically with WP:UNDUE.  SN54129  15:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for your time and recommendations. Oclc's have been added. On the 'Further reading' sources, Canard is very much relevant, and especially his 1951 monograph on the Hamdanids remains the standard work on the topic. The only reason I proceed with a FA nomination without having used it (it is very difficult to find) is that the other sources cover the topic in so much detail that a comprehensive and detailed article can be written without it. On Ayyıldız, see my comments to above. Garrood provides a detailed, up-to-date treatment of the Byzantine offensive that broke Sayf al-Dawla's power, and the Princeton Online Arabic Poetry Project gives a good idea of the sort of panegyrics that established Sayf al-Dawla's reputation for posterity. Constantine   ✍  07:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)