Talk:Abdul Rahman al-Mahdi/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Quadell (talk • contribs • count) 12:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Aymatth2

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and rich.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Mos is followed.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references section is a wealth of information, and well formatted.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Very good sourcing. Sources are reliable, and there is no plagiarism or close paraphrasing.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Admirably complete
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problems
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Most images are free and appropriately tagged. The few non-free images are appropriately used and have valid rationales.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image selection is good. Captions have no problems.
	7. Overall assessment.	I am delighted to pass this excellent article.

This article has many strengths, and can certainly be made into a certified "Good Article" with a little work. I'm going to list all areas for improvements I see, but I'm not a "my way or the highway" kind of reviewer. If you think a suggestion change would not improve the article, just let me know why. Also, I preface each issue with the applicable criterion from above.

Issues throughout

• 6a: Is there really no picture of this historic figure? Any image first published before 1923 (when he was 38) would be in the public domain in the U.S., and he was very wealthy and well-known before that date.

I hunted for images when starting the article. All I found was the one for "Aba Island, Christmas 1945". He was not all that wealthy in the 1920s, except relatively, and there may be no pictures before then. There were also inhibitions about creating images of people, perhaps still relevant in the early years. A fresh search found the blurred picture to the right, which would be fair use if the article mentioned the 1952 visit. I will find a mention. But I cannot find any other images. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame. Well, can't be helped. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1b: There are problems of consistency of spelling, as is true with a lot of Arabic names. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic is, sadly, no longer active.) But the article should pick a consistent spelling. Sayyid is sometimes spelled 'Sayyid (with a hamza... or is it an ayn?), and once as Sayed. The Abd is sometimes written 'Abd. Is it "al-Rahman" or "al Rahman"? Is it "Sudan" or "The Sudan"? Is it "the Mahdi" or "al-Mahdi" (outside of names)? Etc.

I have tried to fix them. They were very inconsistent. :-( Aymatth2 (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• 2b: This article relies primarily on written sources, which is great! But it means I can't check all sources. As such, I'll have some questions in individual sections below. (I assume you still have access to the sources.)

Almost all the cited sources should be online with links. There are a couple without a url, meaning I fell back on snippets for minor details. All the others would be from a search limited to "full view or preview". Possibly Google Books is throttling how many pages you can view. Google does not seem consistent: not everyone can see all the same pages. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see many of the sources after all. Whenever I've checked, the info in the article is found in the listed sources, and I see no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing; well done. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• 6b: The captions need serious work. They should either be complete sentences, and have full-stops, or they should be single phrases without full-stops. In general, the prose should be the same in a caption as it is in text. The Slatin Pasha image spells "Abd al-Rahman" very differently. The Omdurman caption is just a string of fragments. Etc.

I have tried to fix them. I did not know the rule, which makes sense. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• 2a nitpick: In the sources, pp. usually means "pages", whereas "p." usually means "page". It would be better to say "Ibrahim 2004, p. 11." in all places.

Fixed

• 2a nitpick: It's bad form to use Encyclopedia Brittanica as a reference. If possible, it would be better to use a different reference for the one piece of information that this is sourced to.

Fixed. I also added a bit more of a potted history of the Maydiyyah.

• 2a nitpick: Reference 6 overlaps references 79 and 80, and I think they should be combined. There may be other overlaps.

Lede section

• 4: "after the fall of Khartoum". The British saw it as a fall, but presumably Muhammad Ahmad did not. Would "after Khartoum was conquered" fit better in a sentence about MA?

Fixed

• 1a: Should it be simply "Anglo-Egyptian Sudan", rather than "the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan"?

Disagree. "The" is usually included in the name. I think the sense is "that Sudan which was Anglo-Egyptian". Maybe similar to "the Russian empire" or "the United States".

Fair enough. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• 2b: "his ambition to become King of Sudan"... the source listed does not say he had such an ambition. Try Stiansen & Kevane 1998, pp. 27.

Fixed

• 4: There are a couple NPOV problems in the first sentence of the third paragraph. "The British were unable to grasp that..." This is a valid interpretation, but it is just one interpretation. It's unlikely that all British were literally unable to understand the concept. Similarly, "could never be separated" is possibly an overstatement. They never were separated, and maybe it was inevitable that they would not be, but we shouldn't state that as fact. "...would always strive, peacefully" seems like it was impossible for AaRaM to give up on politics, or to choose violent means for political ends. Neither happened, but to say the British were unable to grasp that he would always do so is to assert that it was inevitable and the British couldn't see that. Maybe so, but not NPOV. As a suggestion for rewording, you may try something like: "The British authorities hoped that religion and politics could be separated in the Ansar movement, but this was never fully realized. Sayyid Abd al-Rahman al-Mahdi continued to strive peacefully to become both the religious and the political leader of Sudan, despite continual British objections."

I have tried to fix that. Where I have been going wrong, in this and many other articles, is to reproduce opinions expressed by sources that I consider reliable. Obviously NPOV means no opinions except presumably ones identified as opinions.

The challenge is to keep the prose fresh and lively, while still removing contested opinions (or at least marking them as opinions). It's tricky. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• 2b and 4: Both the lede and the "Elections and independence" sections speculate that AaRaM might have hoped to be appointed President for Life. They both reference Niblock 219, where that author speculates he may have hoped for this. (Niblock has a footnote, but his source isn't visible in the preview). I personally think it's likely AaRaM expected this, and that's why he voiced support for the coup... but the sourcing is very thin. I think it's worth mentioning in the body, but to state it in the lede is probably too much. Info in the lede should be the most important information to understanding the subject, and one author's speculation really doesn't fit.

Agree - removed from the lead section.

• 1b: The lede should summarize every section of the article without introducing new information that is not present in the article body. The first three paragraphs of the lede are very good at this, but the 4th paragraph gives extended speculative interpretation about his influence that is not present in the article. In my opinion, this should be moved to a new "Influence" section (mentioned at the end of this review), and removed from the lede. Instead, you may want to add more in the lede about his positions in WWI, his competition with the Khatmiyya, his relationships with Farouk, the effendiyya, Archer, Azhari, etc.

I have tried to do that. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Length, and article of this length should have a lede of three to four paragraphs. Since this was five, I tried to merge the last paragraph back into to the first. Feel free to reword or rearrange in whatever way makes most sense, so long as it stays 3-4 paragraphs.

Currently, I think the lede is good enough for GA status. However, there are probably still ways it can be improved. For one thing, it would be good to see if the lede makes sense to a reader who has not yet read the article. (I'm too involved to tell, at this point.) For another, since a lede only gives material found elsewhere in the article body, it isn't necessary to have citations in the lede; that same info can be cited where it appears in the body.

• 4: In the fourth paragraph, which I think should be moved, there are a few NPOV problems. "Mastery of manipulation" sounds sinister, and I don't think it's an appropriate wording. (I would argue that all politicians and religious leaders have to be masters of manipulation, but we wouldn't describe MLK or Ronald Reagan in such terms in their articles.) I'm not even sure that this is a "simpler" explanation, since it's not always the most charismatic people who make history... it's perhaps necessary but not sufficient.

Moved and tried to fix it. More work needed on the last section.

Background

• 3b: Since the next section begins in 1885, the background section should not include information about events after that date. In the first paragraph, everything from "They ceded some power in the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty" should be removed and discussed in the relevant sections. Perhaps the second paragraph should be merged into the first.

Everything about post-1885 is now in later sections. A new section header covers the "Mahdiyah" period. Think this flows better.

Wow, this is a big change, and I like it. I see no major problems with the new material. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: In the (current) paragraph 2, "evacuating Khartoum" of what? The British? All Egyptians? All people?

Clarified - the Egyptian army. This section is considerably expanded from Alan Moorehead's book The White Nile, unfortunately not online.

The additions are very good. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: Also, "Gordon was delayed"... does that mean Muhammad Ahmad delayed him, or Gordon dawdled, or what? That whole sentence uses passive voice, making it unclear. Would it be accurate to say instead "Muhammad Ahmad forced Gordon to delay, cut him off, and besieged Khartoum..."?

See above. Clarified. Gordon chose to delay.

• 1b: The introduction would probably be a better place to introduce the Ansar (and give a one-clause definition) than the lead, since this section describes their origin.

I have added a mention of the Ansar to "Background" para 3. They should still be mentioned in the lead.

• 2b: The current paragraph 2 has a single source listed: three pages from a book. Do these pages cover everything in this paragraph, from Ottoman rule in 1820 to Gordon's defeat in 1885?

Added two more sources with a bit more detail.

• 2b: "public outrage over Gordon's death" needs a cite. And I assumed this means "British public", and should probably say so.

Done.

• 2b: Cite 12 (Fadlalla 29-30) is used for many statements: Britain's unresponsiveness, MA's death, Baggara support for Abdallahi, and the different forms of government in the Mahdiyah. Is all this covered on these two pages?

This is o.k. Fadlalla gives a quick overview.

• 1a: It says "Kitchener defeated the Kalifa at the Battle of Omdurman", but to avoid confusion, there should be a quick assessment of what that meant, e.g. "leading to British rule of all Sudan".

Added a quote from Winston Churchill on the result of the battle

• 2b: "In practice, ...the British ran the country as they chose." This is contentious, and needs a specific cite.

This is essentially what the source says. The footnote at the end of the para is now repeated after the sentence to make it clear that this is the source.

Early years

• 4: "engaging in Mahdist propaganda" is not NPOV.

It is, sort of, since the statement is about what the British thought. But this para is reworked for greater clarity.

• 1a: I think that should be Sharif, not Sherif, right?

Yes - fixed

• 4: In the first paragraph, it isn't suitable to say "This happened. Another version is that this happened." Instead, say what is clear, and then say which sources claim differing accounts.

Agreed. I have attempted to do that.

• 1a: The second version is unclear. Why was the Khalifa MS under house arrest? If he was under house arrest, why doe it say he was at large? Were the brothers arrested for "trying to join" him, and if so, what does that mean? They were found guilty by a court martial trial... of what?

See above. Not sure if this is clear enough yet.

Well, I still wonder what the charges were, but I see that the source does not say. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: In paragraph 2, I think AaRaM was a teenager, right? It says he was "constantly watched" (by whom?) and given an allowance. He was paid by the British? Was that standard practice? Was he housed in British housing, or left in his own quarters? Watched by spies, or a caretaker? I ask because these different scenarios would give a vastly different idea of what was going on.

It was typical of the British to pay allowances to local leaders in all parts of the empire, but I don't see how to fit that in. Think it is sufficient to say they gave him a small allowance. The sources do not say the nature of the surveillance, just that it "bordered on harassment".

• 4: You can point out that Slatin had been a prisoner of Mahdists. But without a clear statement by Slatin, it's not NPOV to say his hostility stemmed from this.

I thought of naming the source for the assertion in the text, but have dropped it.

I like the current wording, which allows readers to draw their own conclusions about his motives. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: I would change "After 1908 'Abd al-Rahman was allowed to live in Omdurman" to "After 1908 'Abd al-Rahman, then 23, was allowed to live in Omdurman" (if that's accurate) because it gives a lot more context.

I put that in a bit later.

That's good. I think stating the age (at some point) helps the reader get a better feel for the context. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• 4: What is "a learned man"? Is that sentence necessary? I can't think of a way to make it NPOV, unless it gives more information.

I believe it is relevant. His father was an Islamic scholar, but he was not. Rephrased a bit.

Saying he never became an Islamic scholar works for me. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1a and 4: I don't understand this sentence: "He emphasized his peaceful intentions, convincing the colonialist government that his movement was not dangerous, while often visiting mosques in disguise to meet his followers." Why would he visit in disguise? Was he not allowed to go to mosque? That wouldn't make sense, since the British lent him money to build a mosque. The "while often" wording makes it sound like him visiting mosques in disguise was contradicting his peaceful claims. Was it?

The British did not mind if he built a mosque. Many officials had a lot of respect for Islam. But they would not have approved of his actively drumming up support for his movement. I have shuffled the sequence to make this clearer.

That's much clearer. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1a and 2b: Does paragraph 5 mean that Wingate was helped by his own memories, or by Sudanese memories? Either way, it assumes the Turkish rule really was harsh, and so needs a cite.

Fixed.

This aspect is fascinating to me -- a Christian monarchy trying to convince its Muslim colonies to support a war against a nominally Muslim foe. I can't see the pages referenced in the cite, but as I look at other sources it looks like "harsh" would be a fair (understated) description. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The article can't really get into this, but the British were not necessarily being hypocritical. Some of the administrators were Arabists with considerable respect for Islam. There was a debate going on at the time over whether Islam or Christianity would be more appropriate in South Sudan, echoing earlier debates along the same lines in Nigeria. In many parts of the British empire the colonial officials accepted local religious beliefs and were hostile to Christian missionaries, who caused trouble.

• 1a: Does "greeted with thousands" mean "greeted by thousands"?

Fixed.

• 4: The "in theory" and "in practice" bit in paragraph 6 sounds a bit POV to me. It's best to tread carefully here so as not to insinuate unnecessarily. The source says that they did report on (some) illegal activity and encourage tax payments... that just wasn't their primary aim. The "in theory / in practice" divide seems to indicate they didn't do these things. It would be better to reword into something like "Their stated aim was to ... However, these representatives were more concerned with..."

Fixed, I think

• 2b: There is an extended quote by an unnamed official in the final paragraph. It needs a source immediately after the quote. And it would be best to state that the official was a critic of both Willis and AaRaM.

Fixed, I think

• 4: The final two sentences are a serious NPOV problem. That interpretation is not in the source, and the source seems to indicate the opposite, at least in part.

You are right - I must have been tired. I have dropped these two sentences.

Post World War I

• 1a: Sayyid 'Ali al-Mirghani is introduced abruptly here, as if we're supposed to know who that is. You might state more, though it seems to me that AaM isn't really important to the article here. I would just say that AaRaM went to London as part of a delegation from Sudan.

Resequenced with more on Sayyid Ali. This seems as good a point as any to introduce the sectarian divisions among the Sufi.

Excellent wording. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1b: It seems to me that this section should be organized temporally, sequentially. Right now, the narrative jumps around a bit. Paragraph 3 starts at Jan 1 1922, but ends describing his wealth "by the end of condominium", which I assume is 1924... is that correct? The 4th paragraph goes back to describing how he gained his wealth in the 1920s, including 1921. It seems to me that the 3rd and 4th paragraph should be combined and reordered into one or two paragraphs in sequential order, describing his growing wealth and the consequences.

I have tried to resequence, but there are two overlapping concepts - growing wealth and growing influence - that are a bit hard to present in pure sequence. End of condominium is 1956. I moved that statement to the last section.

It's no longer confusing, anyway. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: What does "pump-scheme owners" mean?

Clarified

• 4: In paragraph 6, is it fair to say the Egyptian troops "mutinied" against British orders if they weren't British soldiers?

I slightly rephrased, but it was a mutiny against British officers serving in the Egyptian army. The commander in chief of the Egyptian army was British, and many of the senior officers.

• 1a: "The 'condominium' was now no more than a fiction." This wording is problematic. If it was still official, it sounds POV to put it this way. If it was not in effect at all, it would be clearer to just say that.

I tried to rephrase. Technically the condominium, or joint rule, continued until 1956. In practice it never meant much and after 1924 meant less.

Perfect. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: Error: "...the British saw educated Sudanese were seen..."

Fixed

• 2b and 4: The direct quote "evasive and obstructive" needs a direct cite. The interpretation "he was always following his own agenda" has POV problems.

Added the cite, fixed the wording.

• 1a: The last paragraph is confusing. It starts by discussing Archer, who had not been mentioned previously, and then switches to mentioning AaRam's KBE award. Was this related? Did Archer give the award? It says Archer ignored the advice of the Sudan Political Service... what's that? A British organization? What advice did they give? After describing the meeting, it says "Archer's visit precipitated a crisis in the colonial administration." But the reader doesn't understand why. I think this paragraph should be rewritten in several ways. If the KBE is unrelated, it should go elsewhere, perhaps in the previous paragraph. This paragraph could start "In March 1926, the newly appointed Governor-General of Sudan, Sir Geoffrey Archer, made an official visit to the Sayyid on Aba Island accompanied by a full escort of troops and officials. This meeting was against the advice of the Sudan Political Service, [a branch of ...], which preferred [something else]." Then it can be better explained what happened and why.

Moved the KBE up to previous paragraph, rephrased and added a footnote to explain the Sudan Political Service.

Growing influence and British hostility

• 1a: I'd reword the first paragraph as unclear, since Archer's visit was in 1926, the SDF hadn't been mentioned before, etc. Perhaps "Beginning in 1925, British authorities again became hostile to Mahdism, and Archer's visit did nothing to change this trend. Though he had set up a new Sudanese Defence Force to replace the Egyptian army, British authorities banned enlistment of Ansar into it." Or something similar.

I moved this up to the previous section, with an expanded description of SDF with Mahdist excluded. Better flow, I think.

• 1a: Minor copyedits: In paragraph 2, I believe "al-Jabri" needs to be "Al-Jabri" when it begins a sentence. In paragraph 4, "an thriving".

Fixed

• 1a: In paragraph 3, consider naming the "effendiyya" at the top of the paragraph, when this group is first mentioned.

Done

• 1a: "or face the consequences"... Were there specific consequences given (or even implied)? If so, name them. Otherwise, just say "or face consequences".

Fixed

• 2b: The quote "various expressions advertising the Mahdi's prophetic standing" needs a direct cite.

Fixed

• 2b: I don't have access to Ibrahim (2002), and it's the only source for all of paragraph 4. This paragraph includes AaRaM's expectations, him seeking converts, British suspicions, and the signs incident. Is all this in the source? And do the interpretations of motives here clearly follow the source?

Yes. I have changed the url to a Highbeam one for the full article. Not sure how the Jstor one got there.

Pro-independence leader

• 1b: Though this section is entitled "Pro-independence leader", nothing in this section spells out that AaRaM was pro-independence. You can see his political maneuvers and compromises, but it isn't clear at all in the text that he was angling for Sudanese independence. I think that either the section should be renamed, or the text inside should be reworded in key places to make it clear that he really was doing all this so that Sudan would be independent.

I have renamed. You are right - it says elsewhere he wanted independence but not too soon

• 1a: In the next section, the name of "al-Umma" newspaper is translated as "The Community". In this section, what does "al-Nil" mean?

Fixed. "The Nile"

• 3a: Paragraph 2 says "to present Sudanese criticism of the Anglo-Egyptian treaty". Which treaty? What did it say, and what did AaRaM object to?

Added a summary

Excellent, very clear. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• 3a: Paragraph 3 says "as an alternative voice to that of the discredited tribal leaders". What tribal leaders? I think this sentence is the first the article mentions tribal leaders as a political force. Why were they discredited? Either this should be explained here, or previous sections should have material added to prepare the reader.

Added some context, but I am not sure why the source says "discredited", except that by this time they obviously would have been to the educated Sudanese.

• 3a: Something named Khatmissa is named here out of the blue, but is not mentioned elsewhere. Is this Khatmiyya?

Yes - my typo. Fixed

Al Umma leader

• 3a: I'm a bit confused here as well. The title is "Al Umma leader", and the first paragraph mentions a newspaper, and then a party. As a party, the paragraph mostly just says that it was largely unrelated to AaRaM, but was funded by him, and there were untrue rumors about it. I get no sense of what the party was, or what was true about it, or why it is the title of the section, especially since the next two and a half paragraphs don't mention Al Umma at all. Then the last paragraph mentions the British trying "to get the tribal chiefs and village leaders to leave the Umma", but I hadn't known there were any chiefs and village leaders in the party; I thought it was based around a newspaper. So either this section needs to be renamed, or (preferably) Al Umma needs to be better described, along with some indication of how it relates to most of the content in the section.

I have renamed the section, also used "Umma party" rather than al-Umma. The party was clearly identified with Ansar despite the disclaimers.

• 1a: Paragraph 1 mentions "rumors that al-Umma had been created by the government"... I assume this refers to the British Government? Not a nascent Sudanese government?

Colonial government - Technically Anglo-Egyptian.

• 1a: "of the al-Ashiqqa party" ... of Sudan, I see, but that wasn't clear. It should be specified.

Done

That may seem like a nitpick, but I think it really makes the whole paragraph seem clearer and easier to follow. Thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• 4: I don't understand the last sentence of the 4th paragraph. Both sides? Is that Umma and Khatmiyya, or Sudan and Britain, or what? Also, if the measure passed, why would a side that opposed the measure claim victory?

Clarified

Great explanation. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• 4: "In this, he probably claimed too much." That has NPOV problems. If someone thinks he claimed too much, it should say who thinks so.

Reworded

• 2b: The last 3 paragraphs are all sourced to pages 71-74 of Warburg (1978), but that's not available in the preview so I can't check it. These paragraphs say a lot, including a lot of opinion. Can everything in these three paragraphs be found in the source, and can the interpretations and assessments be firmly backed up by what's in the source?

Yes - it is all there. I see 71, 73, 74. Annoying that you can't.

Glad to hear it. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Elections and independence

• 1a: Now that the Egyptian independence info starts this paragraph, "The Sayyid" sounds a little more ambiguous, so I think it would be better to be clear you mean AaRaM.

I have replaced "the Sayyid" everywhere with Abd al-Rahman.

I'm not sure that strict consistency is necessary -- we still want the prose to seem lively and flowing. But at any rate, it's no longer a problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: "An agreement between X and Y with Z" is a little unclear and could use a reword.

Done

• 1a: "The NUP victory... may have been due in part to support from the Khatmiyya, in part to fear that the Umma would try to re-establish a Mahdist state..." Does this mean that the victory was due in part to Khatmiyya support, and part of Khatmiyya support was due to fear of a Mahdist state? Or that part of the NUP victory was due to Khatmiyya support, and a different source of NUP victory was this fear? (Again, I can't see the source.) The "may have been" along with the "in part" wordings make the whole sentence sound like a hedge, and I think it could use a reword. What's the strongest way you could word this that would still be completely backed by the source?

Clarified. Two causes, not one within the other.

• 1a: Isma'il al-Azhari is sometimes referred to as Azhari, sometimes as al-Azhari, and sometimes as al-Ashari.

Fixed - spelled out the name if full everywhere

Again, it's better not to sound too stilted... but it's no longer confusing. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: When the text refers to "a reversal of the earlier NUP position in favor of union with Egypt", it comes as a surprise that the NUP favored unification in the first place. In my opinion, it would be better to state this position where the NUP is introduced in the previous paragraph.

I have added a note that the NUP was a successor to al-Azhari's al-Ashiqqa party. It mentions when introducing him that al-Azhari wanted to unify the Nile valley.

• 1a: In the final paragraph, both "al-Sayyid" and "Sayyid" are used as the title (and the infobox uses "Sayyid").

Fixed, I think. This section needs work.

With so many Sayyids and Sadiqs and al-Mahdis, it's hard to tell, especially for those not used to Arabic names, but I guess that can't be helped. The names at National Umma Party Sudan are different still. Makes me wish Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) were still active. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Influence

• 3a: It seems to be that the article needs some sort of "Influence" or "Death and influence" section, though it doesn't have to be long. (The last paragraph of "Elections and independence" would presumably be moved here, as might the last sentence of the lede.) As a reader, I'm left wondering whether the Ansar continued to be important in Sudanese politics, or if al-Umma did, and how AaRaM is seen in Sudan and South Sudan today. Can this be provided?

Agreed. I have made a start. Aymatth2 (talk)

It's a little dry, but it's a good conclusion. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)