Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Azaz (1030)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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 by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Azaz (1030)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk) and Al Ameer son (talk)

Battle of Azaz (1030) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Battle of Azaz is not as well known as the big Arab–Byzantine conflicts of earlier centuries, but is nevertheless a typical specimen of border warfare, and a parade example on the dangers of having an armchair general as commander-in-chief; even though not decisive on any wider scale, it was a major humiliation for the Byzantines and personally for Emperor Romanos III. The article has been written by Al Ameer son and myself, and we both feel it is as complete as it can be. Constantine ✍ 09:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, thanks for your efforts. This looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dabs etc the deliberate dab at the top of the article (no action required)
  • ext links all work (no action required)
  • referencing seems good to me (no action required)
  • Michael Spondyles is overlinked, as is John Skylitzes
    • Fixed.
  • suggest adding the date of the battle (August 1030) to the first paragraph of the lead
    • Done.
  • in the lead, bone of contention sounds a little too colloquial
    • Changed to "flashpoint".
  • in the lead, Contemporary Byzantine chroniclers on the other hand: implies that it stands in congruence to the first part of the paragraph, but the first part of the paragraph is presented as fact. Should the first part be presented as opinion also? If so, of whom?
    • "On the other hand" was probably an unfortunate choice here; the implication is that while Romanos did indeed campaign in order to restore the Byzantine position, his personal participation in and direction of the campaign, despite his complete inexperience in military matters, were judged by the Byzantine historians to be a quest for personal glory. Rephrased accordingly.
  • in the lead, harassing the imperial camp. As a result, the Byzantines began: suggest clarifying that the harrasment prevented them from foraging and that was what let to their hunger
    • Fixed.
  • link suzerainty, siege engine, and dirhams
    • Fixed.
  • taken with a grain of salt...: seems a bit colloquial in its wording
    • Fixed.
  • reconnoiter the area.[15][6]: suggest putting the citations in numerical order
    • Fixed.
  • and especially from thirst.[15][6]: same as above
    • Fixed.
  • grandiose entry into Antioch: move the link for Antioch to the first mention
    • Fixed.
  • in the Sources, is there an OCLC for the Sewter source?
  • same as above for Bury (entry under Stevenson)?
  • the date range in the title of the Wortley source should have an endash, not a hyphen
    • Fixed.
  • the Wortley source uses {{citation}} where the others use {{cite book}} -- this leads to a slight inconsistency in terms of presentation (compare full stops after dates, compared to commas)
    • Fixed.
  • sources all seem reliable based on the publishers, except I wasn't sure about the Zakkar work. Can you tell me anything about this author, or the publisher?
    • I don't know much, but I've seen his work included in the references of books by the likes of Farhad Daftary, C. E. Bosworth, Heinz Halm, and Seta B. Dadoyan. His book on Aleppo was prefaced by Bernard Lewis, and Paul Cobb ranks him highly among Arabic-world scholars.
  • is there anything that could be included about casualties?

Support by Chetsford

edit

What a really interesting and well-written article! I learned loads. Honestly, this is so good that I feel like a freshman astronomy student doing a peer review of a Stephen Hawking paper and feel embarrassed to provide any input at all. In any case, as I was reading this I made a few notes which I've copied below but all of which can basically be ignored since none of them qualify my support for advancement.

  1. The lead is three paragraphs; per MOS:LEADLENGTH, an article of this size should have a one or two paragraph lead. That said, the first paragraph is quite short so I think this is safe.
  2. I'm not familiar with the publishing house of Dar al-Amanah, nor am I familiar with the works or credentials of Suhayl Zakkār and can find nothing about him. However, based on a cursory search, it appears his writing has been referenced in a variety of unambiguously RS publications so I'm sure this is a fine source.
  3. I feel like an annual tribute of 500,000 dirhams should be "an annual tribute of 500 thousand dirhams", however, on reviewing MOS:NUMERAL it doesn't appear that's necessary.
  4. I initially thought maybe that jihad is such a common term now that it wasn't necessary to add the paranthetical (holy war) but, on second thought, I feel like it's better with it.
  5. All the regular stuff (DAB links, external links, etc.) seems to check-out. I didn't bother to look at image licensing as someone more qualified than me will do that.

Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time and for your kind words Chetsford, I am glad you found it interesting! On Zakkar, the same issue was raised in the previous review, he is indeed one of the most eminent historians of the period in the Arabic world. On "500 thousand", I don't like mixing it this way, either 500.000 or fully spelled out, but with large numbers I think MOS counsels preferring the former. If you have any further comments for improvement, above and beyond ACR requirements, don't hesitate to mention them. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Gog the Mild

edit

As Chetsford notes, the sources are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry

edit
  • Personally, I wouldn't italicise "status quo"; it's become a common term in everyday English usage, but italicising is not strictly wrong
    • Nevertheless, good point. Done.
  • attacked in "scattered groups", creating the "illusion of great numbers" Do you need the quote marks there? Neither of those is a particularly unusual phrase.
    • Indeed, and the source attribution is quite clear. Removed.
  • I wouldn't link camel; most readers know what a camel is
    • Good point. Done.

Those are only very minor points that barely need addressing, so support. In my view this is a nice, concise article and it clearly meets the criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this nomination, HJ Mitchell. A happy new year to you and your loved ones. Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 13:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review all the images are appropriately licensed, PD due to age (13th century). Captions are appropriate. Good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Azaz_(1030)&oldid=877687113"