Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Yarmouk

Battle of Yarmouk

This is one of the most decisive battles in history. I had a little role in developing this article and want to know what could be improved. Especially, the unassessed coverage issue bothers me. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey

Lead should be expanded as the article is long
Citations are quite sparse
The formatting of the citations needs to be consistent, immediately after punctuation
And for date ranges, ndash needs to be used rather than hyphens. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyriakos

Apart from what YellowMonkey has said here are some other points to consider.

A background would be good to explain the situation in the area including something on the spread of Islam to the area and from the Byzantine side, Heraclius' reconquest of the area from the Sassanids.
The sections seem to be wierd places. For example the 'Weaponary' section is in 'Battle' section and the Troop deployment section. I personally think these sections would be better placed in the Byzantine Roman army and the Muslim Arab army section.
One or two more images would be good as well. Kyriakos (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giordaano

Since I am not an expert in Arab or Byzantine military history, I will simply make a few general remarks.

The entire article is written from the point of view of one of the contenders, the Muslim army (strangely,called the "Rashidun Army"). The name already implies somehow a POV, since it means "Rightly-guided" (it refers of course to the Rashidun Caliphs).

The whole detailed narration is derived from Muslim historians and displays a strong apologetic tone, i.e. it is intended in order to praise the valour of the Muslim army, of its leader etc

One particular issue, as we all know, is constituted by the estimation of numbers: it was somehow an article of faith, for Muslim commentators, to underline the disproportion between the Byzantine and the Muslim Army. This, in order to illustrate the exceptional valour of Muslim soldiers and the qualities of their leadership.

As I said, it's impossible to modify an article which is structured on this basis : it should be entirely rewritten by a specialist, but I doubt that anyone of the necessary caliber is available on wikipedia.

Failing this, the article should stay as it is, explaining however clearly that the narration is based mainly on accounts from the Muslim side.Giordaano (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]