# Talk:Abd al-Rahim al-Hajj Muhammad

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abd al-Rahim al-Hajj Muhammad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 11:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:

There are several duplicate links in the article which need be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: Bal'a, Zionism, Beirut, British Army, Jerusalem, and Nashashibi.
WP:EUPHEMISM specifically advises against use of euphemism such as "passed away" found in In 1934, his wife Badia'a passed away...
Why is "Abu Khalid" italicised?
The British Army is wikilinked in the "Death and legacy" section, while there are numerous instances of "British forces" earlier on in the prose. I assume those refer to the British Army, so I'd suggest renaming the first instance correspondingly and wikilinking it there instead of the "Death and legacy" section.
Done. The above issues have now been addressed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Prose review:

In The web of tribal loyalties of the al-Barqawi also provided him resources in fighting men and provisions. there's something wrong apparently. should it be perhaps "... in fighting for men and provisions" or something else?
A criminal record of al-Hajj Muhammad is mentioned, followed by a disputed allegation of a crime attributed to him. Was the criminal record about that alleged crime or something else. Perhaps it would be good to clarify this if sources offer the information.
There is an unclear bit in the ... notion of armed struggle against British rule and sponsorship of Zionism became increasingly popular ... I assume that the sponsorship of Zionism was not growing popular among Palestinians, so this should be "... British rule and British sponsorship of Zionism..." assuming the British were sponsoring Zionism.
The In order to avoid detection, al-Hajj Muhammad would not command a large regiment of troops. implies he commanded a small regiment, whatever that may be. Since a "regiment" is normally a military unit of a fairly defined size, perhaps it would be better to say "large number of troops" or "large unit" or something else along those lines.
In British aerial reinforcements were called and three planes were dispatched to aid the ambushed convoy. it is completely unclear what type of reinforcements is the article talking about. Were those fighter (or bomber) planes or paratroopers or airlifted infantry?
A similar situation exists further on in the article in The British Army, with aerial support, assaulted Deir Ghassaneh .... Was this close air support? If so, I suggest using this more precise term.
Is it possible to say "Mandatory figures"? Assuming you refer to figures disclosed by the Mandate of Palestine authorities, I'd go for "figures disclosed/published by the Mandate authorities".
I assume that the AHC acronym stands for the Arab Higher Committee. If so introduce the abbreviation after the mention of the committee as "Arab Higher Committee (AHC)" and reword that sentence to avoid double brackets. If it's something else, provide that info.
Sentence In addition to the general suspicions local rebel commanders had of the AHC, many of whom joined the Central Committee of Jihad (founded in late 1937 by Izzat Darwaza) after being banned by the authorities in October 1937, and of outside Arab military leaders, a serious rivalry also existed between al-Hajj Muhammad and Abd al-Raziq. is confusing. It would probably benefit from being broken up in two. In addition, explain who was banned.
What was meant here: He already been in Damascus since October 1938.? Preceding text has already established he was in Damascus in January 1938 for medical treatment, and he returned to Palestine the same month. Should this read "He moved back to Damascus in October 1938." or something else?
In ... resulted in the latter's [Committee's] cutoff of supplies and funding at one point in 1938, were supplies and funding withheld from the Committee or to the Committee. Present wording is unclear.
Done (mostly). All the issues except for the second point have been addressed. Unfortunately, the sources I have access to at this point do not make clear if the criminal record is related to the alleged fraudulent land sale. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating to read. Some clarifications are needed and few tweaks to clear the GAR, though. Great work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I've taken care of most of the issues now. Appreciate the review --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. All clear now - passing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is it? March 27, as mentioned in the first sentence and the infobox, or March 23, as mentioned in the first sentence of the chapter "Death and legacy"? In my main source for the future Hebrew article, Yehoshua Porat (1978), it says 23rd in two different places, while in a third place it says that the British siege on Sanur took place on the 26th (print error?). Liadmalone (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where I got March 27 (unless another user or I/P changed it at some point). March 23 appears to be the correct date according to several sources so I'd go with that. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bibliography chapter states two books, Swedenburg 1988 and 2003, while the References state "Swedenburg 2008". Is 2008 supposed to be 2003? All of them? Liadmalone (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)