Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath


 * 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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash&

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍ 

An Arab nobleman of Iraq who raised one of the largest rebellions against the Umayyad Caliphate. His life is a perfect example of the complex tribal and factional rivalries and conflicts underlying the early Muslim state. The article passed a GA review without trouble, and I feel it is ready for an A-class review. Constantine  ✍  16:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Califate_750.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  14:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * How about a "See also", "External links" or "Further reading" section? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For "See also", the relevant links are already in the article: the similar revolts are already mentioned, and anyone somehow related to him or his revolt likewise. For "External links", I know of none that would be useful. There is the article in Britannica for instance, but it does not contain anything new. The subject simply isn't that well-known outside the narrow scope of early Muslim history. For "Further reading", Veccia Vaglieri's article in EI2 is the most comprehensive narrative on the revolt I know of outside primary sources, and I have already included most of the works that have something additional to say. The primary sources themselves, viz. al-Tabari, are also mentioned in the article for anyone who wishes to check them up. If I should chance upon a study or journal article not yet included here, my first choice will be to add it to the main text, and only if for whatever reason it is not, will I make a "Further reading" section. Constantine  ✍  20:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that checks out that then. Minor note though: "commonly simply known as" does not flow well. I suggest tweaking to "commonly known as simply". Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "simply" altogether. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  19:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I don't know anything about the topic, sorry, and I can't really comment on content, so I read through mainly for narrative flow. Overall it looks quite good, but I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * in the lead, "The revolt gained widespread support among the discontented with the Umayyad regime" --> perhaps "The revolt gained widespread support among those who were discontented with the Umayyad regime"?
 * in the lead, "which now became directly controlled" --> perhaps "which then became directly controlled"?
 * " Nevertheless, it is clear that al-Hajjaj quickly became unpopular among the Iraqis in general through a series of measures that "[seem] almost to have goaded the Iraqis into rebellion" (Hugh N. Kennedy)" --> perhaps " Nevertheless, according to Hugh N. Kennedy, al-Hajjaj quickly became unpopular among the Iraqis in general through a series of measures that "[seem] almost to have goaded the Iraqis into rebellion".
 * It is not Kennedy's opinion that al-Hajjaj was unpopular; he was widely regarded as a tyrant and is among the main "villains" of the anti-Umayyad narratives. Kennedy simply provides the quote. I've rephrased it however.
 * Your solution works for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * probably same as the above for the other quotes (e.g. Hawtig and Vaglieri).
 * Mostly the same as before, but please check the changes I've made.
 * Hi and thanks for the suggestions and the copyedits you already made! I've made some alterations based on your suggestions, please have a look. As for the content, I am aware the subject is rather obscure, and am chiefly interested in whether it is accessible to our readers, who like you probably have never heard of him. Are the terms, people, issues, context, etc. explained adequately, or should I elaborate further? Constantine  ✍  14:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think it is okay as is. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * In the lead you wrote: "On the way, the mutiny developed from a mutiny against al-Hajjaj to a full-fledged anti-Umayyad rebellion..." This is a little repetitive (use of "mutiny"), perhaps consider something more simple like: "On the way, a mutiny against al-Hajjaj developed into a full-fledged anti-Umayyad rebellion."
 * "...which henceforth became directly controlled by the Umayyad regime's staunchly loyal Syrian troops....", consider instead: "...which henceforth came directly under the control of the Umayyad regime's staunchly loyal Syrian troops."
 * This is a bit euphemistic: "Uthman himself fell in the field". Do you mean he was killed in the battle?
 * "On 24 or 25 January, Ibn al-Ash'ath overwhelmed al-Hajjaj's advance guard at Tustar..." What year?
 * Are the dates here correct? In one paragraph you write: "Ibn al-Ash'ath entered Basra on 13 January 702..." then in the one below "al-Hajjaj marched on Kufa in April 701...". If they are correct the chronology of the paragraphs might need to be altered as it seems somewhat counter-intuitive.
 * Yeah, I noticed that I had a few errors here, I can't really understand how I made them. Nevertheless, fixed. Thanks for pointing them out. Constantine  ✍  09:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "taking him with him to Zanbulistan...", should this be "Zabulistan"?
 * These points aside (without any knowledge of the subject) this looks like a complete, well-written, and well-researched article and appears to be of a very high standard. Anotherclown (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, and for your suggestions and pointing out these errors. I am glad you were able to read it without problem despite the lack of any knowledge. Any further suggestions in this regard? Perhaps something that should be better explained, or a bit more background given? Cheers, Constantine  ✍  09:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Gday, I've added my support now. The only other suggestion I have is to place each entry in the "Battles/wars" and "Relations" fields in the infobox on a separate line (I think it is more common to do this and easier for a reader to review quickly). Anotherclown (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.