Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Al-Mundhir III ibn al-Harith


 * 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) 05:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Al-Mundhir III ibn al-Harith

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍ 

King of the Ghassanids, the most important Byzantine client ruler of the late 6th century and one of the most important pre-Islamic Arab rulers. The article passed a rather thorough GA about a year ago, but it is complete and well-referenced, and should meet A-class criteria. I'd like eventually to push this for FA, so any criticism and/or advice is welcome! Constantine  ✍  13:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Al-Mundhir_III_ibn_al-Harith. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. "his son Nu'man and his remaining three brothers.": Nu'man's brothers? If not, say "his three remaining brothers and his son Nu'man". - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed the ambiguity. Thanks for your copyedits, as well! Constantine  ✍  16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: looks good. I couldn't find anything that really stood out as needing attention and I believe that it meets the A-class criteria. I have the following comments for the review:
 * the one image used appears to be appropriately licenced to me (no action required);
 * ext links work and there are no dab links (no action required);
 * referencing seems sufficient (no action required);
 * in the Arrest and exile section, the duplicate link checker tool reports two duplicate links: "John of Ephesus" and "Patriarch of Antioch". They might need to be delinked, but it is only a minor point. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delinked the duplicate links. Constantine  ✍  16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  -- I'll take up the copyediting from where Dank left off, soon as I get a chance...
 * Just quickly while I think of it: while it doesn't fuss me particularly at A-Class, if you're taking to FAC your citations should follow the general format of the relevant reference, e.g. "Greatrex & Lieu" should appear "Greatrex; Lieu". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Noted, and thanks for taking up Dank's work! Constantine  ✍  16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Prose/structure/style -- looks like Dan completed his copyediting so my habitual all-through copyedit was pretty light; the article is very readable and well formatted, however I have to admit I'm not sure of the point of the brackets around "Flavios" in the opening sentence.
 * Agreed, changed to parens. Is this okay, Constantine? - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine, thanks! Constantine  ✍  13:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Refs/citations -- aside from what I said at the top re. citation formatting, FNs 9 and 28 are identical.
 * Images -- happy to rely on Rupert's check above.
 * Source spotcheck -- went through Shahîd, the main one available online:
 * FN 9 -- couldn't find any ref to Hirah on the cited page.
 * FNs 20, 27, 28 -- no issues.
 * FN 25 -- although I can't see everything in the page range on GoogleBooks, it looks to me that the assertion re. historians' view of the supposed treachery is supported; however the claim that author Shahîd is "the foremost scholar on pre-Islamic Arabian Christianity and Arab relations with Byzantium" really needs its own independent citation, otherwise you should probably simply describe him as "author of Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century", which is self-evident.
 * Content -- while I think we probably have enough coverage of his career to meet A-Class standards, it seems a bit spartan over all. Just considering it from a potential FAC perspective, do you feel you've mined most everything you can on the subject? Are there no anecdotes (even legendary ones, as long as reliably sourced) or quotes available that might give us a little more insight into the man himself, as opposed to simply what he did? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the issue of size, I agree that the article is "spartan", but this is deliberate. The article could be (much, much) longer, if I included a fuller discussion on the various issues surrounding Mundhir, but then it would be a condensed (and heavily plagiarized, no doubt) version of Shahid's excellent book, and I certainly wouldn't make such a good job as he in presenting them. I aimed to provide a complete but not over-detailed presentation of the subject for the average reader. Before going to FAC, I'll definitely run through the sources again and see if I can add something, but a major expansion in the main narrative is unlikely. If however you feel you'd like to know more in specific places in the text, feel free to list them! On the legends, I know there are some anecdotes on Mundhir, or rather the Ghassanids in general, but they all date from far later in the Muslim era, e.g. in the Kitab al-Aghani. Their reliability is open to question, and I haven't yet been able to find a good source in English for them. I shall keep looking, however. Constantine  ✍  13:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On footnote 9, I guess you looked in Byzantium and the Arabs, rather than in the Encyclopedia of Islam. The article on Hirah is on those two pages, 462 and 463. Constantine  ✍  13:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, tks for altering the page range for FN9.
 * Re. content overall, as I said before, I felt there was just about enough for A-Class but that FAC could use a bit more flesh on it -- the Legacy section does that nicely, tks.
 * I saw the alteration to the description of Shahid but you're still expressing an opinion on the author that's not self-evident for the lay reader -- you may know he's an "expert" but I don't, to me it's self-evident that he's an historian, and the author of a book, and that's about it. I would describe him here in either of those terms, or just take out any description of him since I can see now he has a WP article anyway. I may be a hard-arse here but if this is destined for FAC, might as well address this sort of thing now -- everything else I'm happy with. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I just removed "an expert on pre-Islamic Arabian Christianity and Arab relations with Byzantium" ... I'm not contesting that, it's just that since he's got his own article, the right place to argue and support that is in that article, not in this article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks Dank -- well that makes two reviewers sharing the same opinion on that little point. Constantine, on the assumption you're okay with that change, I'm happy to support for A-Class and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. The article on Shahid is a stub, so I felt an emphasis on his role as an authority in these matters was warranted. But I am equally fine with no description (after all, an observant reader will notice how many times and in what publications he is referenced). Thanks to the both of you for your assistance. Constantine  ✍  16:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. Sourcing looks good, article seems comprehensive, and the language is understandable. I would, however, like to see an additional sentence or two explaining A-M III's importance to history. I note that his reign ended one year before Muhammad was born in the region just to the south. I assume that actions during his reign must have had some influence on the rise of Islam just a few decades later, but I don't see anything about this. Johnboddie (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have some good sources on the general importance of the Ghassanids, including their place in pre-Islamic Arabia. I'll have some time in about a week, and add a short section then. Constantine  ✍  16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added the section, as promised. Constantine  ✍  13:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks great. The "legacy" section is just what I was looking for. Johnboddie (talk) 16:24, 12 May 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.