Wikipedia:Featured article review/Radhanite/archive1


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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:49, 11 November 2010.

FARC commentary

 * Notified: Briangotts, WikiProject History

I feel that this article fails criteria 1b and 1c. Concerning 1b, the article is simply not long or detailed enough to cover five hundred years of trade history.


 * It does not adequately explain the role which the Radhanites played in the development of trade in the early middle ages, and fails to give an overview of trade in this period.
 * There are issues with the fact that the article does not sufficiently differentiate between c. 500 C.E and c. 1000 C.E. The first line of the "Historic Significance" section is "During the Early Middle Ages the Islamic polities of the Middle East and North Africa and the Christian kingdoms of Europe often banned each others' merchants from entering their ports". There were no "Islamic polities" of any significance to international trade until the 8th century AD, and no Islam before the 7th century.
 * I feel that the placement of Ibn Khordadbeh's account essentially gives undue authority to a potentially unreliable primary source, while the secondary sources cited do not adequately represent modern scholarship.
 * The article claims that it is unclear whether "Radhanite" "refers to a specific guild, or a clan, or is a generic term for Jewish merchants in the trans-Eurasian trade network". One significant theory, which is unmentioned in the article, is that "Radhanite" was a term for a follower of Rabbinic Judaism as opposed to one of Karaite Judaism. (see for instance,.
 * Tertiary sources such as the "Encyclopaedia of World Trade" are used as references, while the "Activities" section is completely lacking in citations (unless the creator believed s/he could support it adequately with the primary source quoted in depth).

In short, the article simply does not meet Wikipedia's FA criteria because it lacks the breadth and depth of coverage, and it does not significantly represent modern scholarship on the issue. Jan 1922 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Review commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing, comprehensiveness  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  23:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist – I'm not an expert on the topic matter, so I'm not the best judge as to whether this is comprehensive (although it seems problematic judging by the nominator's concerns). However, I do know something about whether an article is well-cited, and this is not sourced sufficiently to meet modern standards. In addition to the section mentioned earlier, significant portions of the body are lightly cited. Also, I agree that the primary account takes up way too much space, especially considering that this is a relatively short article.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist, agree with concerns raised about referencing issues, and lack of thoroughness. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.