# Talk:Abu Mansur Wahsudan

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abu Mansur Wahsudan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 21:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

One para instead of two with one of a single sentence: merge what's there.
Think I did it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
"from 1025 to" but infobox has (?) there so that implies a level of uncertainty not indicated by the prose.
It is; "This likewise contradicts coin findings, with one struck in Wahsudan's name in 1016, which suggests that he became ruler between 1014–1016." Sorry if this is a bit confusing, but I'm grasping a straws with the limited information there is x). --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
What's a "suzerainty"?
Changed to authority. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Where is his "issue" (in the infobox) referenced?
In the bottom of the reign section. Also added the last son. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
"sixty panegyric qasidas" what are they?  Could we add a footnote explaining these highly jargonised terms?
"against the Ispahbadh of Mughan. The Ispahbadh was" bit repetitive.
"1037/8"->"1037/38"
"1040/1" likewise.
"1041/2," similar.
And "1232/3".
"1058/9" last one I think.
Abu Nasr Husayn II	is shown in succession box as predecessor, but the infobox and text demonstrate that's uncertain.
Yeah the infobox is kinda limited in that regard. That's about the best way I could explain it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi HistoryofIran. How can the epic poem about the ruler be considered irrelevant when so little from that period has survived, and the poem is one of the few remaining works? According to Ahmad Kasravi, sixty panegyric qasidas by the 11th-century poet Qatran Tabrizi, dedicated to Wahsudan, have been preserved. This, in my view, is worth mentioning. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Ozan33Ankara, please stop. You only did it because it mentioned that his father was an Arab, which is a controversial topic in itself and has resulted in Rawadid dynasty being a complete mess, which won't happen here too. It's a useless and controvertial piece of information that won't make the reader anymore clever. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
I’m not here to sling any mud. This is one of the few historical works remaining about the Emir, and it deserves a section. The section could be called “Surviving works.” If the goal is to uphold quality, how would you suggest placing it in the article? Also, how would you approach improving the Rawadid article? --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
This is one of the few historical works remaining about the Emir, and it deserves a section.
That is not true, everything we know about this person is from historical works (primary sources) which we cite through WP:RS (secondary sources).
The section could be called “Surviving works.” If the goal is to uphold quality, how would you suggest placing it in the article?
No, stop.
Also, how would you approach improving the Rawadid article?
By citing relevant information in a cohesive and neutral way through expert WP:RS and not citing whatever I can find through Google ebooks and then not overemphasize. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
While I do not agree regarding this article I will set that aside for now and leave the article as it is. Since you believe you could produce a better version of the Rawadid article, I invite you to prepare a draft. I am interested in seeing which elements you would retain and which you would omit.--Ozan33Ankara (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Not right now, probably in the future though. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)