Template:Did you know nominations/Nizari–Seljuk wars
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Yoninah (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ismaili–Seljuk conflicts
- ... that the Nizaris (Assassins) managed to disrupt their superior opponent, the Seljuk Empire, through effective use of assassination? Source: "The Nizari were a weak and relatively isolated group who could not confront the might of the Seljuk Empire and its allies directly, but in assassination they found an effective tool for disrupting the empire." [1]
- Reviewed: Lisa Kearney
5x expanded by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 16:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC).
Unfortunately, the article fails the supplementary criterion D7, completeness. There are several 'expand section' tags, and one section that is entirely missing. Until this is dealt with, the article is disqualified from the front page; even in the event this is rectified, it would fail the time constraint for DYK. Constantine ✍ 17:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, although a great deal of work is needed to satisfy D7, since the nomination has already been made within the seven days as required, the DYK time criterion is satisfied. The work should be done as soon as possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm going to fix it then. --Z 18:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Ready for a DYK review now. I also want to change the hook (any improvements are welcome): --Z 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the minority Nizaris (Assassins) of medieval Persia disrupted their superior adversaries by effective use of strongholds and assassination? ("socio-political power in the Saljūq empire had come to be increasingly localized ... the strategy best suited to the objectives of a revolutionary movement had also to be decentralized. The Persian Ismā � ı̄lı̄s adopted precisely such a piecemeal strategy ... there scarcely existed a major or central target ... Consequently, the Nizārı̄ strategy was based on the seizure of a host of strongholds ... so as to overwhelm the existing decentralized socio-political structure from within." Source: Daftary (2007), p.327)
- @ZxxZxxZ: Hmmm, I remain unconvinced, unfortunately. The article appears complete, content-wise, but even for me, who am somewhat knowledgeable on the subject, it is heavy going trying to read it. The prose needs extensive copyediting for grammar and typos, but more than that, the context is very poorly presented. Just a couple of examples out of many, you introduce terms and events (the Ilkhanate, the Mongol invasions) in the "Sources" section that are unlinked and unfamiliar to the vast majority of our readers, and in the 'The participants and the nature of the conflicts', where you should introduce just who the Nizaris and Seljuks are and why they were fighting, you write of a 'simple Nizari vs Seljuk [conflict]' as if readers are familiar with it. If I were to review this for GA, for example, the list of corrections, remarks and suggestions for improvement would be very long. Technically nothing in the DYK rules states anything about the article quality, but there is an unstated assumption that it should be well-written; after all, the aim of a DYK article is to get readers to read it and learn something new, and for me, at the present state, the article is frankly off-putting. I strongly recommend that you request a copyedit at WP:GOCE and then submit it either for a peer review and/or a GA review, pinging the Military History project for assistance by experienced editors. Then you can resubmit for DYK based on the eligibility of recent GAs. Added to the previous concerns, I object to the renaming of the article to "Ismaili–Seljuk conflicts", because the article does not cover the Fatimids' conflict with the Seljuks at all. Constantine ✍ 16:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- I myself believe the most important problem is the prose, I was just unsure how bad it was. This is a broad subject and needs a lot of work to be an acceptable article; the GA route is probably a good idea. I hereby withdraw this nomination to make a new one in the future.
- Regarding the title, I'm still thinking about a proper title (I'm also considering expanding the scope of the article to include conflicts with the succeeding Khwarezmian Empire as well). The "Nizari" in "Nizari-Seljuk" was an imperfect word since the revolt took place before the Nziari-Musta'li Schism, i.e. at a time when there was no such thing as a Nizari, and those Isamilis were actually subordinate to the Fatimids, although this subordination was practically limited at that stage. --Z 14:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- @ZxxZxxZ: Hmmm, I remain unconvinced, unfortunately. The article appears complete, content-wise, but even for me, who am somewhat knowledgeable on the subject, it is heavy going trying to read it. The prose needs extensive copyediting for grammar and typos, but more than that, the context is very poorly presented. Just a couple of examples out of many, you introduce terms and events (the Ilkhanate, the Mongol invasions) in the "Sources" section that are unlinked and unfamiliar to the vast majority of our readers, and in the 'The participants and the nature of the conflicts', where you should introduce just who the Nizaris and Seljuks are and why they were fighting, you write of a 'simple Nizari vs Seljuk [conflict]' as if readers are familiar with it. If I were to review this for GA, for example, the list of corrections, remarks and suggestions for improvement would be very long. Technically nothing in the DYK rules states anything about the article quality, but there is an unstated assumption that it should be well-written; after all, the aim of a DYK article is to get readers to read it and learn something new, and for me, at the present state, the article is frankly off-putting. I strongly recommend that you request a copyedit at WP:GOCE and then submit it either for a peer review and/or a GA review, pinging the Military History project for assistance by experienced editors. Then you can resubmit for DYK based on the eligibility of recent GAs. Added to the previous concerns, I object to the renaming of the article to "Ismaili–Seljuk conflicts", because the article does not cover the Fatimids' conflict with the Seljuks at all. Constantine ✍ 16:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)