Talk:Marwan I/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eperoton (talk · contribs) 18:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Al Ameer son. I'll be reviewing this article. It's good that you've been through this process quite a few times, since I'm doing my first GA review, and you'll be able to tell me if I do something wrong. :) Eperoton (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Meets GA standards. I think the prose is about as clear as one can expect for the content, and easier to read than the sources I checked. I did some light copy editing. Not sure if others would perceive "pay allegiance" as unidiomatic like I do. In any case, the things I changed would not have affected the outcome.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Very strong sources and good citation format. No issues noted.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers all the major aspects of the subject I see in the sources.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Uses standard references and a couple lesser known sources I wasn't aware of. Representative selection, no NPOV issues noted.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Pass.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Pass. I'm not aware of any other images one could use here. Interestingly there's a coin with a portrait of Talha on Commons, but seemingly not one of Marwan I.

I’ll check for any coins dating to Marwan’s caliphate, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there aren’t any considering his very short reign which was limited to Syria and Egypt. That’s actually not a portrait of Talha, who was killed by Marwan prior to his reign, but the image of a Sassanian king. Muslim rulers and governors, including Talha, continued to use these Sassanian prototypes until the era of Abd al-Malik and al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf.

Ah, good to know. Eperoton (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Pass. Kudos for the great article, Al Ameer son, and thanks for your quick response to my comments. Eperoton (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Your kind words are appreciated. Thanks again for the review. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the general reader may have a bit of trouble grasping the Sufyianid/Marwanid transition from the current text. I would recommend something like this as the second sentence in the lead "He ruled for less than a year in 684–685, founding the Marwanid ruling house, which took over power from the Sufyanid branch of the Umayyad clan and remained in power until 750."

Done. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Many of Uthman's erstwhile backers among the Quraysh gradually withdrew their support for him as a result of Marwan's increasing influence over the caliph's decisionmaking. Was it because they didn't lilke the fact that the Caliph was influenced by Marwan, or because they didn't like Uthman's decisions, or both? Madelung's discussion is too long and complex to tell at a glance.

I'm still not 100% sure of what decisions Marwan was accused of being responsible for. Indeed, historian Fred Donner notes the lack of specific charges against Marwan and ascribes the blame he gets in the generally anti-Umayyad Muslim traditional sources as polemical. I hope I've clarified the text with my recent changes. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• In response, Marwan criticized Mu'awiya at his court in Damascus. This is confusing because one doesn't expect to find Marwan in Damascus and because it could mean intriguing against Mu'awiya behind his back. I would suggest a connecting phrase mentioning that Marwan traveled to Damascus to confront Mu'awiya in person.

Clarfied. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• ...realized the importance of the Syrian troops'... This will be confusing to the general reader, who doesn't know that Yamani tribes were established in Syria.

Hopefully clarified. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Marwan modeled his administration on the reign of Caliph Uthman. To that end, he made his family the foundation of his power, giving his sons Muhammad and 'Abd al-'Aziz key military commands, and ensuring 'Abd al-Malik succeeded him as caliph. This implies that hereditary succession was somehow modeled on Uthman's reign. Does Kennedy give more detail or a clearer formulation regarding this?

Eperoton (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope I've clarified this now. Uthman did not designate a successor and as such was not a proponent of dynastic succession, but nonetheless heavily relied on his kin, appointing them to key provincial posts or administrative roles and often favored them financially. As opposed to Mu'awiya, who nominated his son as successor, but neglected his family as an institution, relying instead on his personal relations with key individuals, such as tribal chiefs or local and religious notables. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Thanks for reviewing this article. All excellent points and suggestions. I’ve addressed a couple of them, but will give a more detailed response later today. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I've addressed the remainder of your points. Let me know what you think. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Link and page number in Ref 12 (Kennedy) are of third edition, while ISBN, year etc of 2nd edition. AhmadLX (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Thanks for spotting that. Fixed now. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that Madelung's assessment of "intrigues" be properly connected with Madelumg himself in last sentence of the para too. Currently it shows as if this opinion of Madelung is historical fact. Madelung is criticized for his supposed far-sightedness of characters he considers villainous. AhmadLX (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Madelung has been criticized for this, but I believe both the positivist/neutral views of Marwan, held by most western historians, and the suspicious views of Marwan, namely by Madelung who relies almost exclusively on the generally anti-Umayyad sources, need to be represented in this article. Certainly, the former should be (and has been) given more weight. As for the sentence in question, the way it's written now explicitly attributes this as Madelung's view. However, I'll make an alteration to it now that might help this attribution clearer. Otherwise I'm open to suggestions. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)