# Talk:Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi

This review is transcluded from Talk:Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for taking on this review! I was still copy-editing it a little, but I'm done now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Spot checks:
"The Kitāb al-Haft wa-l-aẓilla ('Book of the Seven and the Shadows'), also known as Kitāb al-Haft al-sharīf ('Noble Book of the Seven') or simply as Kitāb al-Haft (Book of the Seven'),[i] 8th–11th centuries, is perhaps the most important work attributed to al-Mufaddal." is sourced to this source, which source does not appear to support the " ('Book of the Seven and the Shadows'), also known as Kitāb al-Haft al-sharīf ('Noble Book of the Seven') or simply as Kitāb al-Haft (Book of the Seven'),[i] 8th–11th centuries," part and is only slightly supporting the "is perhaps the most important work attributed to al-Mufaddal" (I'm assuming that "Mofażżal b. ʿOmar Joʿfi" is just another transliteration of the article's subject's name.) as I'm assuming that the source's "Most famous among these is the Ketāb al-haft wa’l-aẓella" is supposed to support "is perhaps the most important work attributed to al-Mufaddal"?
"but the text likely goes back to the 9th century and perhaps even to al-Mufaddal himself" is sourced to this source p. 192 which does support the "perhaps even to al-Muffaddal" part but I'm not seeing the "likely goes back to the 9th century" in the source on page 192?
"In four 'sessions' (majālis), Ja'far argues that the cosmic order and harmony which can be detected throughout nature necessitates the existence of a wise and providential creator" is sourced to this source p. 184 where "In four "sessions" or discourses (majlis), al-Sadiq expounds on the necessity of God's existence as dictated by the order, harmony and wisdom evident in the creation of humankind, the animal kingdom, the cosmic environment in which they find themselves, and in the presence of "natural disasters"." which probably mostly supports it, although I would argue that "wise and providential" is not supported by this source (and strikes me as a bit POV)
I'll stop here and we can sort these out and spot check a few other spots if needed (I'm not convinced that I'm actually seeing issues rather than just me not being as familiar with the subject so I'm missing information in the sources) before continuing on with the review. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for these spotchecks (I've numbered them in your comment for easier reference). Here are my replies:

I hope this assuages your concerns. I've noticed that the more I have read about a subject and the more I know about it, the more difficult it is to create inline citations in appropriate places which cover everything that is said in that place. Summarizing the points of view emanating from a range of sources each taken as a whole is very different from placing fact A from page Q in source X after fact B from page R in source Y, as is the more usual wiki-style.
But it pays off to read to the whole paper or monograph, and to read more than one of these. Since content needs to be verifiable rather than verified, I think this approach is also okay by WP policies. On the other hand, one of the most important purposes of a review is to verify whether the content is supported by the sources cited (and I highly appreciate that you actually take the time to do that!). This is undoubtedly made more difficult by incorporating in each sentence context from many sources and/or from different places within one source. In my opinion it makes for a better article, but also for a more difficult review. So please bear with me; we're both going to spend a little more time on this than is perhaps usual.
If you think more spotchecks are needed I'd be happy to take them on. I'll probably come up with similar explanations as above, but there may well be cases where I just strayed too far from the source, so if you still feel that way after my explanations please do tell so we can correct them.
Thanks again for your time, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay - husband came home for five days so I was ... busy. The above assuages my concerns about sourcing/paraphrasing/etc. So on to the rest of the review! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
No worries, I was getting a bit anxious (especially given the earlier WP:V concerns), but I'm glad it turned out alright, and it seems to me that a review from you is worth the wait! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
General:
I noticed several instances of duplicate linking - suggest an audit to make sure that the article doesn't have overlinking of some terms (I noted heresiographer which is linked in the Life section and in the other ghulat works section)
? I generally take a rather liberal approach to MOS:DUPLINK. My interpretation of the clause that a link may be repeated if helpful for readers is that if a link would substantially help the reader to either understand the content (e.g., for unfamiliar terms) or find more information providing context (e.g., on relatively obscure historical figures), and if it has not been linked yet in the same top-level section (and so may well be the first time the reader crosses the term if they jumped to that section, as many readers do), it should generally be linked, regardless of how many times it has been linked before. Unsurprisingly then, running User:Evad37/duplinks-alt uncovered quite a few duplicate links, but only some of which actually constituted over-linking in my view. These duplicate links I removed as obvious mistakes on my part [2], but I left in the following:

I'd be happy to discuss any of these as to whether they are really helpful enough to be repeated, but I hope you can agree on the general principle of repeating a link whenever it is actually helpful to do so.
Lead:
Not required, but the MOS suggests a maximum of four paragraphs for the lead. The lead feels a bit large for a 3500 word article - suggest perhaps cutting the lead down a bit.
Yg I have trimmed the lead a few times since I originally wrote it, but I realize it was still long. I have trimmed it some more now, taking it to 611 words/3943 characters coming from 667 words/4,328 characters [5] (coming before that from 731 words/4,734 characters and before that from 832 words/5,324 characters).

An example: "As a money-changer (ṣayrafī), al-Mufaddal" is there a reason we need the translation? I can see using the Arabic for technical terms for the various writings/etc but I can't see how knowing the Arabic for money-changer helps my understanding of the subject. There are a lot of Arabic translations for reasonably common terms used throughout the article - a strong consideration should be given to whether any particular transliteration actually advances the common reader's knowledge ... I'm sure that much like my own medieval English history specialization, the academic literature is sprinkled with transliterations of terms into the original language (Latin in my case) but I don't use many of these in articles for Wikipedia, because they won't help the non-specialist at all and just add a level of "academicese" to an article that impedes comprehension.
Yg I orginally added "(ṣayrafī)" because "al-Ṣayrafī" is sometimes given as part of his name (e.g., al-Mufaḍḍal al-Ṣayrafī, "Mufaddal the Moneychanger"), and so I thought placing it in the lead might help some readers establish that they arrived at the right article. But that use case may be too rare to justify the presence of "(ṣayrafī)" here, so I've removed it. In general, it's often hard to decide whether to use an Arabic term or not. I realize that Arabic terms may be distracting to non-specialist readers, but they may also be very helpful at times for readers who are looking for more in-depth connections. I've cut back a bit on the usage of Arabic terms, throughout the article but especially in the lead. [6]
"Different interpretations exist: whereas early Imami" ... interpretations of what? this sentence does not flow well from the preceding one.
Yg This is an artefact of an earlier attempt to trim the lead section. Should be fixed now [7].
"and tried to bring his followers back on the right path." rather than "right path" (which smacks a bit of putting a POV in wikivoice) I suggest we say "orthodox" or similar?
Yg In the lead I have now changed the content itself of this sentence in order to better reflect the sources. [8] That Ja'far appointed al-Mufaddal to bring Abu al-Khattab's followers back on the 'right path' is still present in the main text and in a footnote. I do think, however, that at least in the main text there is enough context to understand this as the specific Twelver Shi'i POV: it's what Twelver sources insist Ja'far ordered al-Mufaddal to do.Using a term like 'orthodox' would likely be even more problematic, because it would tend to confirm an existing misconception among the general public that Twelver Shi'ism is somehow the proper and 'orthodox' form of Shi'ism: 'orthodox' sounds like something a modern scholar might say, whereas 'right path' at least sounds as POV-ish as it actually is (most scholars today reject distinctions such as orthodox vs heterodox).For reference, what the sources have here is Yet most sources—and in particular Imamite works—argue that Jaʿfar first condemned Abu’l-Ḵaṭṭāb and then charged Mofażżal to return the Ḵaṭṭābiya to the right path. (Amir-Moezzi 2013) and According to imami tradition, however, he was appointed by Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq to rein in the excesses of the Ḵaṭṭābiya (Gleave 2008–2012).
Suggested edits to lead (example of cutting down some):"A major part of the extant writings attributed to al-Mufaddal originated among the ghulāt, an early branch of Shi'i Islam. A recurring theme in these texts is the myth of the world's creation through the fall from grace of pre-existent "shadows" or human souls whom God punished for their disobedience by casting them down into seven heavens created for this purpose. In the Kitāb al-Haft wa-l-aẓilla (Book of the Seven and the Shadows, 8th to 11th centuries), seven primordial Adams rule over the seven heavens and initiate the seven historical world cycles (adwār). The Kitāb al-Ṣirāṭ (Book of the Path, written c. 874–941) describes a "path" (ṣirāṭ) leading believers back through the seven heavens towards God. Only those who attain a degree of religious knowledge may climb upwards on the chain of being: others are reborn into human bodies (tanāsukh or metempsychosis), while unbelievers travel downwards and reincarnate into animal (maskh), vegetable, or mineral bodies (raskh). Those who reach the seventh heaven enjoy a beatific vision of God and share the divine power to manifest (tajallin) themselves in the world of matter." which hopefully retains enough of the important bits without being so overwhelming.
Yg Great suggestion! I incorporated most of it. [9]
Kitab al-Sirat:
"This ability to manifest in human form the "Gates" in the seventh heaven share with God." something is missing from this ...
Yg Changed to "This ability is shared between the "Gates" in the seventh heaven and God, who also manifests himself to the world by taking on a human form." [10] Is this clearer? The source here (Asatryan 2017, p. 145) has Likewise, God manifests Himself to human beings by assuming their form, as do those who achieve the highest degree of the Path.
Other ghulat works:
HEre's an example of where some Arabic is useful and where other isn't: "Though mainly dealing with the actions that the Mahdi will undertake to render justice to the oppressed, the work also contains references to mainstream Shi'i ideas such as temporary marriage contracts (mutʿa), as well as to the ghulāt idea of world cycles (adwār)." The link to mut'a is one that's useful, but the "adwar" link is just added clutter, I'd suggest "mainstream Shi'i ideas such as temporary marriage contracts (mutʿa), as well as to the ghulāt idea of world cycles."
Yg Removed it here and in a few other places, along with some other Arabic terms that were mere clutter. [11] I do think that technical terms like adwār are often worth mentioning, especially if they indicate a concept that recurs across many different texts in various traditions (examples of other such terms here are tajallin, bāṭin, rajʿa). So when Dawr (world cycle) has become a blue link I will probably consider putting it back, but I agree that at this time it was only cluttering the already existing text.
Mu'tazili-influenced works:
"Rather than by Shi'i doctrine, their content appears to be influenced by Mu'tazilism, a rationalistic school of Islamic speculative theology (kalām)." the first phrase appears tacked on and doesn't make any sense here...
Yg Removed the tacked-on phrase and changed to "Their content appears to be influenced by Mu'tazilism, [...]". [12]
"Often transmitted together in the manuscript tradition" do we have some sort of link for "manuscript tradition"?
? Not really, unfortunately. It seems the closest we have are pages like Manuscript culture or Textual criticism, but I'm concerned that linking to these may wp:astonish more than it would clarify. I've considered for a while linking to a redirect Manuscript tradition which would lead to Manuscript for the time being, but since I'm not sure whether that topic deserves an article or even a separate article section, I've not done that either. We could simply link manuscript, but that would not seem helpful (and thus MOS:OL) in this already involved context? Not really sure what to do here, so done nothing for the time being.
Mostly, I understood the content - which given that it's well outside my normal editing area, is a good thing!
That was a major concern for me when writing this article, so I'm really very glad to hear that! 
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: I have checked the issues I think should probably be solved with Yg, and put a ? before two issues of which I'm not entirely sure. For my part I do think we're good to go. Thanks again for your time, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
These look good. I'm passing this now. I suppose I should rouse myself to write a manuscript tradition article but frankly manuscript studies is not my favorite topic (or even my 20th-favorite topic) in medieval studies, so I'll pass, I think. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Re [13][14][15][16], just to bolster my claim in the last diff that "the prophet Muhammad" is the way reliable sources generally disambiguate in such cases, here is what the source used in this instance, Modaressi (2003) p. 336, says (bold added for emphasis):
Du‘ā’ Samāt / Du‘ā’ Shabbūr. The text of a du‘ā’ that Muhammad b. ‘Uthmān al-‘Amrı̄, the second Agent of the Twelfth Imām, released to the Shı̄‘ite community as a text related from Ja‘far al-Sādiq by Mufaddal. [...] This “full” text seems to only add the mention of the Prophet Muhammad and his ̇family to the original text in a number of instances towards the end. No other significant modification appears to have been introduced.
☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)