# Talk:Battle of Ayn al-Warda

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Ayn al-Warda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Le Petit Chat (talk · contribs) 16:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Interesting article. Some minor comments.

Thank you Le Petit Chat for reviewing this. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


### Style
Please note that English is not my native language.


#### Intro
The Penitents were a group of pro-Alid Kufans led by Sulayman ibn Surad, a companion of Muhammad, who wished to atone for their failure to assist Husayn ibn Ali in his abortive uprising against the Umayyads, which led to his death at the Battle of Karbala in 680.
Two subordinate clauses in one sentence.

Simplified. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
They were, however, deserted by most of their supporters shortly before the departure to northern Syria where a large Umayyad army under the command of Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad was preparing to launch an assault on Iraq.
After I read the belligerent section of the article, I think this sentence could be clearer. It is not easy to understand that the Penitents wanted to attack the Army of ibn Ziyad before he reconquers Iraq.

It is not stated in the sources that the Penitents wanted a preemptive strike against the Umayyads. It just happened to be that when the Penitents were ready to go against them, Umayyads had consolidated themselves in Syria and were preparing for reconquest of Iraq. Penitents had motives of self-sacrifice, not the defense of Iraq. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


#### Background
Arab custom and Islamic principle
I would have used plurals.

Made "Islamic principles". I am not so sure of the other. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
who by virtue of their descent could lay "some claim to be considered as caliphal candidates" (Hawting),
At first, I did not understand that Hawting was the author of the quotation. You should make it clear by using , from the words of Hawting or according to G. R. Hawting. Or just give the author of the citation in a note.

Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


#### Belligerents
Marwan defeated them with a small army of 6,000 at the Battle of Marj Rahit (684). Following the victory, Marwan sent Ibn Ziyad back to Iraq. Realizing that an army of 6,000 was not enough to reconquer Iraq, Ibn Ziyad...
6,000 is repeted two times. I would suggest something like Marwan defeated them with a small army of 6,000 at the Battle of Marj Rahit (684). Following the victory, Marwan sent his army, led by Ibn Ziyad, back to Iraq. Realizing that his forces were not strong enough to reconquer Iraq, Ibn Ziyad....

Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Ibn Ziyad had developed a formidable army of Syrians
Could developed be replaced by raised.

Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


#### Battle
At al-Qarqisiya, the Qaysi refugees from the Battle of Marj Rahit of the previous year aided them with supplies. 
Who is them?

This ambiguity came from section rearrangements. Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
suggested that he should march
Twice the same idea of an advice. Use "suggested a march", "advised him to marche", "declared he should march" or "suggested him to march" instead?

Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
firing arrows at them and thrusting at them in an open space for they outnumber you and you cannot be sure that you will not be surrounded
Who is the author of this quote? Zufar? Kennedy?

Kennedy. Quote followed immediately by citation is clear enough I think. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
dismounting and fighting on foot
Aren't dismounted troops always fighting on foot?

Fair enough. Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
... disputes between its two commanders. Some 8,000 troops were under the command of Shurahbil ibn Dhi'l-Kala, and the rest were under Husayn ibn Numayr.
Since Ibn Ziyad is the commander of the army, talking about its two commanders seems strange. Maybe change it to disputes between the two lieutenants of Ibn Ziyad.

Changed to "field commanders". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
the handing over of Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, the supreme commander of the Umayyad forces, in order to be killed for his involvement in the death of Husayn
I believe in order to be killed is a complex grammatical form.

To me it appears to be easily understandable, but, of course as the writer of the content, my view is biased. Removed "in order". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Sulayman divided his army into three groups
Could be modified to Sulayman divided the Penitents army into three groups, since I forgot who was Sulayman as I read this.

Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
On the first day, the Penitents were able to drive the Umayyads back
I would have used "repel" since back is also used on the next sentence ( bn Ziyad sent Ibn Dhi'l-Kala back).

Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
... the numerical superiority of the Umayyad army began to prevail. Despite suffering severe losses, the Penitents were able to hold the ground.
Not logical, if the Umayyad numbers prevailed, the next sentence should not be centered about the forcing back of the Umayyads. 
I propose ... the numerical superiority of the Umayyad army began to prevail. Despite holding the ground, the Penitents suffered severe losses.

Added "Nevertheless,", since emphasis is on their being able to withstand losses. I think your formulation is better. So done  AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Ibn Surad ordered his men to dismount and advance on foot to engage in one-on-one combat. 
Since the Umayyads are more numerous, isn't it stupid?

Yeah might be ;) Perhaps he was following Zufar's advise :-/ AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


#### Aftermath
The small number of Penitents who survived felt remorse for not having fulfilled their vows of sacrifice.
Since survivors was used on the last sentence of the previous paragraph, could another word be used. Maybe who fled the battle or still alive?

I think it is fine. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 Mukhtar had been critical of Ibn Surad and the Penitents movement for its lack of organization and political program.
Since Ibn Surad and the Penitents movement are two entities, shouldn't the plural be used (for their lack of)?

Removed Ibn Surad. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Mukhtar's control now extended to most of Iraq, parts of the Jazira, Arminiya and parts of western and northern Iran (Adharbayjan and Jibal).
Because of the now, we are expecting the story to go on. Maybe use then instead?

Changed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


### Images
Images must be used. If no images of the battle are available, use at least images of Ummayad armies in the Belligerents section.
Added one. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe another image showing the current landscape of the region could help the reader?--Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't find any on commons. Although there is one showing agricultural fields, it is unlikely to be similar to the landscape of the battlefield.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 13:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


### Sources
I think a list of primary sources can be added.
Please see below. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


### Impact of the battle on the history of Islam
Could some short details be added about the impact on further events? From the basis I had about Islam, the death of Husayn was linked to the Shia Islam. A ordinary reader (as I was before reviewing this article and reading Second Fitna) won't know who is Mukhtar. I think you should add some words about the influence of the Penitents on Islamic world. Feel free to discuss about it.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Le Petit Chat: This battle in itself had no impact on history other than clearing way for Mukhtar. It has been treated in fair detail I think. But overall Penitents Movement did have some impact on Islamic history. In particular, mourning on Husayn's grave and self-blaming and flagellating found in contemporary Shi'ism have been traced back to the Penitents movement–but not this battle which was just an end to their movement. As such, I think it should be discussed in the article on Penitents movement. Similarly, the only primary source for this whole affair is Abu Mikhnaf. He is generally considered reliable, but his authenticity in the Penitents affair has been questioned by a couple scholars. It too should go into the main article in my view. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Thanks for your explanations about the Penitents. For the source, I think Abu Mikhnaf should be mentionned somewhere. For instance (I didn't find the perfect working): "According to the 8th Islamic historian Abu Mikhnaf,...", with a small note about the doubts on his reliability.
I added a footnote on this. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The only remaining question is the images. I would recommend you to add a map of the battle for instance, maybe ask the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Le Petit Chat: What kind of map? A relief map of the region or something else? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually I was thinking about something else: a map of the positions and movements of the armies during the battle (like this: c:File:Battle of the Gebora-en.svg) and another for the strategic movements (like this: c:File:Battles of the Uganda–Tanzania War.svg). I think the latter will be useful by helping to situate the different places. The first map may be harder to do if no clear locations of the armies positions during the battle have been stated in the sources. Anyway, if some primary source are given, I think the article can pass the review without maps. --Le Petit Chat (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
That kind of map would require very detailed description of the tactics, topography, troops locations and movements. Unfortunately, there is not enough info on this in the sources–at least I'm not aware of any. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


### Conclusion
The only remaining question being the maps, I conclude that this article is a good article for the criteria.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: thanks for your edits, they do improve the article. However, I think Belligerents is a better title than Combatants to describe the two armies.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the replacement of Hereditary succession from father to son, since it was twice about the same idea. However, why did you remove the both from the sentence Hereditary succession was  alien both to Arab custom, ..., and Islamic principles, ...?--Le Petit Chat (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Le Petit Chat: No issue with Belligerents. Removed “both” because it’s unnecessary/redundant. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanations.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)