Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (782)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (782)

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍ 

The twin article of the 806 campaign, this expedition was Harun al-Rashid's first major military undertaking and likewise one of the most well-known campaigns of the entire Byzantine-Arab conflict. The article passed GA without major problems a couple of weeks ago, and I think it meets A-class criteria. Constantine  ✍  09:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have had a quick look at the article in "editing". There are a couple of things that are very minor and I'm possibly picking at it. (1) Article infobox can be expanded to include the strength, units, casualties and losses. Image in infobox increased by 20px (to 300px) (2) In the "Background" section pargraph two, after Caliph Umar (r. 634–644) there is a space between the closing of the bracket and the fullstop. (3) Sources changed to Bibiolography. Mind you this is my first attempt at trying to help with an article for ACR assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time for reviewing this! Don't worry, I am grateful for any help you an give. I'll fix these issues, but, in addition, how do you perceive the article as a text? Is it understandable and complete? Would you like something elaborated upon? Cheers, Constantine  ✍  15:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments - I'm well outside my lane here but since few of us seem to be reviewing at the moment so I'll give it a go:
 * No dab links (no action required).
 * External links all check out (no action required).
 * Image lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * The map (very impressive BTW) is licensed and seems appropriate to the article (no action required).
 * This sentence seems a little awkward to me: "Taking advantage of the internal difficulties of the Caliphate, resulting from the Umayyad civil wars in the 740s and the subsequent Abbasid Revolution, the Byzantines under Emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) were able to regain the initiative in their eastern borders and pursue an aggressive strategy." Perhaps consider something like: "Taking advantage of the internal difficulties of the Caliphate that had resulted from the Umayyad civil wars in the 740s and the subsequent Abbasid Revolution, the Byzantines under Emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) were able to regain the initiative in their eastern borders and pursue an aggressive strategy.
 * "but the Byzantines were still capable of major counterstrikes...", → "although the Byzantines were still capable of major counterstrikes..." (suggestion only)
 * "Hasan led over 30,000 troops into an invasion of Byzantine territory, but the Byzantines offered no opposition and withdrew to well-fortified towns and refuges, until a lack of supplies forced Hasan to return home without achieving much...", → "Hasan led over 30,000 troops in an invasion of Byzantine territory, yet the Byzantines offered no opposition and withdrew to well-fortified towns and refuges, until a lack of supplies forced Hasan to return home without achieving much..." (suggestions only)
 * This seems like it is missing a word: "Thumama was entrusted with the other half, invaded Anatolia proper and marched west as far as the Thracesian Theme, but was heavily defeated there by Lachanodrakon...", perhaps "Thumama, who had been entrusted with the other half, invaded Anatolia proper and marched west as far as the Thracesian Theme, but was heavily defeated there by Lachanodrakon..."
 * Hadath is linked twice, the second instance should be delinked per WP:REPEATLINK.
 * Overall, this article looks quite good to me and there are only a few issues to deal with / discuss. It reads well, is well cited, appears to cover the topic sufficiently (although I'm not an expert) and is succint. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One other point. Harun al-Rashid is mentioned in full in the lead (correctly); however, he is not formally introduced in the text of the article until the aftermath section. His full name should be used in the first instance (with a wikilink) in the "Background" section, then he should be referred to as "Harun" there after per WP:SURNAME. Anotherclown (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time for the review! I've implemented your suggestions and made some minor tweaks elsewhere. Please have a look and tell me if there's anything else. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  17:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Happy to support now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting, but there wasn't much to do. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support:
 * I've read through the article a couple of times and I agree with the endorsements above regarding prose (no action required);
 * article is well referenced and IMO meets the A-class requirements in this required (no action required);
 * the sole image used in the article appears correctly licenced to me (no action required);
 * no duplicate links could be found (no action required);
 * copyright: I checked the online sources using the Duplication Detector, searching for strings of 5 words or more: nothing popped out as concerning (no action required);
 * (nitpick) there is a slight inconsistency in your dash useage. For example you use a spaced endash here: "His son and heir Harun – better known by his laqab, or descriptive name, al-Rashid – was left". But you use an unspaced emdash here: "heavy annual tribute—the Arab sources mention various amounts between". As these are doing the same thing, they should be consistent. Either style is fine, IMO, but consistency the key;
 * in the infobox: "spring-summer 782". I'm not sure, but I wonder if this should be "Spring–Summer 782";
 * in the References: The Cambridge Medieval History, Volume IV: The Eastern Roman Empire (717–1453) has an editor listed on Worldcat - "John Bagnell Bury". I'm not sure if you want to list them or not. I've added an OCLC number for the work, though, as it doesn't appear to have an ISBN due to its age. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.