- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to GA class. Given the lack of historical material on the dynasty, I think the current amount of information is OK for GA status (but not for FA status). I also want users to comment on the article's neutrality, verifiability, reliability of sources, and comprehensiveness. Revealing the article's grammatical and stylistic errors is also something I want.
Thanks, Bless sins (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: I have made a fair number of minor changes to the text, mainly to improve grammar, remove repetitions, etc. This does not amount to a full copyedit, however. The article is generally well-written, but would benefit further from the scrutiny of a competent copyeditor.
The article is, overall, neutral in tone, although a few subjective terms such as "marvellous" should be cited or replaced. It is also reasonably comprehensive. The referencing may be a problem in that almost all citations are either to an on-line Britannica article or to the Encyclopedia of Islam. These are presumably reliable sources, but since you have not indicated page numbers or article details for the Encyclopedia of Islam references, it would be difficult for someone to attempt verification. A wider range of sources would have been preferable.
Some specific points from the text:
- Lead:It is important to the reader's understanding of this article that "Abbasids" be briefly explained. The term is linked, but on central matters like this, your article should be autonomous. I suggest: "…internal conflict among the Abbasids, the ruling caliphate of the Arab empire, meant that control…" etc
- Historic context
- Section heading should be "Historical context", not "historic". However, I suggest that this short preliminary paragraph would be better as the first subsection of the main "History" section, and titled "Background"
- "Regionalism" and "regional" in close proximity in the text, reads awkwardly. Suggest change the second to "provincial".
- "Iraq"? I thought that this was the modern, not the ancient name for the region?
- The redlink is very untidy as you have it. Can the name format be simplified?
- It's not clear why the "developments" you describe enabled Ahmad Ibn Tulun to expand his authority. I would suggest: "As a result of this instability, Ahmad Ibn Tulun was able to establish and expand his authority".
- Ahmad Ibn Tulun
- The year form 254/868 must be explained, in the text or by a footnote
- "Ahmad Ibn Tulun maintained his power". Does this mean he defeated the Abbasid armies?
- English Wikipedia readers will have problems with forms such as Ḵh̲umāramayh, which you have now introduced into the article and occur in profusion later, with no explanation. I personally think that it would be better to stick to the standard English alphabet, as at the start of the article, unless you have a particular reason for this change.
- Ten-year reign? 868-884 indicates longer. Also, describing it as "successful" is opinion unless cited.
- Palestine and Syria were occupied – by Ibn Tulun, presumably. You should state so.
- Khumarawayh: Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Wāsiṭī is another awkward name format.
- Culture
- Word missing: "Khumarawayh's [reign] exceeded his father['s] in spending"
- "marvellous" is opinion, unless cited to a source
- Some indication of the worth of "400,000 and one million dinars" would be useful. The link on dinar to the modern currency is not particularly helpful.
- Ottoman should be linked
- Military
- Usage of "blacks" to describe people is definitely unacceptable. Suggest end sentence at "Sudanese".
- Military engagements should be summarised by text, not by bullet points
- Economy: "propitious" levels? A very odd choice of word.
- Financial autonomy
- First sentence is unnecessary.
- Last sentence: there should be a better way, in an encyclopedia article, of referring to doubts about the 300,000 dinars.
- Tulunid administration
- "pitiless" needs a citation
- phrases like "which in Egypt is a sine qua non" may not be understood by the general reader. Also, political stability is surely an essential condition anywhere, not just in Egypt?
- Large expenditures: "..on the eve of the young Tulunid’s rise" would be better phrased "…at the time of his succession".
I hope that these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
CommentI'm somewhat puzzled by your statement that there is a "lack of historical data" on this period. While the 9th & 10th centuries in Egypt are not as well documented as 20th century Egypt might be, & that the average public library might be lacking in books on this period, translations of primary sources (chronologies, histories, biographies) & scholarly works do exist. You may also need to think about looking at histories of neighboring countries or events either just before or after this period for possible sources. Looking through the bibliographies of some of the related books in my personal library, Vasilev's Byzantium and the Arabs looks as if it might have useful. Other possible sources would be the works of Eutychius of Alexandria (mentioned by Steven Runciman) and History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria. A Wikipedian who may have some useful suggestions about reliable works for this period is Adam Bishop -- llywrch (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)