# Talk:Al-Amir bi-Ahkam Allah

The transcription "Al-Amīr" does not seem to match Arabic الآمر ... AnonMoos (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the transliteration according to the cited form الآمر.
-- 19:53, 12 November 2008 User:Emilyzilch

Feel free to insert this coin into the article. PHG (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Al-Amir bi-Ahkam Allah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Al Ameer son (talk · contribs) 04:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 
Will begin review within the coming few days; made some minor copyedits, feel free to revert if unhelpful. Al Ameer (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


### Comments/SuggestionsReview
Reign in the infobox?
Wow, how did I miss that? Added.
Consistency with capitalizations of Caliph and Imam ("the tenth Fatimid Caliph, and the 20th Imam of the Musta'li Isma'ili sect" and "ninth Fatimid imam-caliph, al-Musta'li")
Fixed.
Do we know the names of his mother and his wife (the daughter of al-Afdal)
Gibb gives the name (or rather title) Sitt al-Mulk for his mother, but I haven't been able to corroborate it. The title is otherwise treated as unique for Sitt al-Mulk, the daughter of al-Aziz. Al-Afdal's daughter is not named in my sources (would have to look into primary sources likely). Will add if I find anything.
"… the main preoccupation of the Fatimid state was the conflict" → "… the Fatimid state was preoccupied with the conflict"
Rephrased.
Perhaps a little more context about the "territorial losses in the previous decade" and the Nizari schism. A footnote would also suffice.
Done.
"coastal cities" → "Syrian (or Levantine) coastal cities"
Done.
Add a map showing the Crusader states/Fatimid Egypt. Al Ameer (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Map added.
@Al Ameer son: I have addressed the points above. Anything else? Constantine   ✍  06:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

That is all. Thanks for another great article on one of the lesser known Fatimid caliphs. Al Ameer (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Heyy, Neveselbert and Cplakidas: you (separately) removed links I'd put in "Cairo" and "Fatimid Caliphate" in the birth date field of the infobox.
I had seen them linked once within the infobox, but I chose to link them a second time at the place of birth as I figured (from my own behaviour) that birth- and death-date and place are spots where a lot of readers would glance first; Cairo being linked in the caption at the top would be completely lost, and perhaps readers wouldn't look at the caliph's title before his place of birth. What do you think, do you disagree with this rationale?
I only found out about MOS:GEOLINK while voraciously reading the manual of style for linking before posting this, but separate links to modern-day Cairo and the Fatimid Caliphate still make sense to me, as the Caliphate is a historical geographic place—and linking it here will provide important context about the historical state, at the expense of some link clarity, to readers who will glance at the infobox first. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@I'llbeyourbeach I don’t disagree with your quite sensible suggestion, the problem is though that in any upcoming review process (I am planning to get this up to FA standard fairly soon) they will be required to be removed again per MOS. Constantine   ✍  20:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The MOS isn't absolute is it? You can show them my (our? ^-^) rationale for making the exception.  —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I've adjusted the link to Cairo in the caption to Islamic Cairo and restored the link in |birth_place=. I don't think a second link to Fatimid Caliphate would be necessarily helpful. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)