# Talk:Battle of al-Harra

@AhmadLX: I have never heard of Elhami or seen him cited by any of the usual sources. That of course doesn’t make him unreliable, but I do share your concern. The source is written in Persian and I am illiterate ;) The same goes for Pour and the Shia Studies journal. It is safer in my opinion to stick with the peer-reviewed, reliable and verifiable sources. Also the material backed by these sources in question contradicts the latter sources as far I’ve seen, and some of it is quite polemical. I’d opt for replacing or removing this material. I’m about to start work on the Aftermath section. —Al Ameer (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, just look at the title:  Revivalist movements affected by the revolt of Imam Hussayn (A.S). This suggests that the contents are based on religious motivations and neutrality required for academic publication is non-existent. Of course, such sources can be sued when presenting the viewpoints of adherents of a particular belief system, they cannot be used to assert opinions as historical facts such as "particularly due to the incitement in Medina against Yazid by Husayn's sister Zaynab upon her return from Karbala". Wellhausen and other academic sources, on the contrary, mention that Ali b. Husyan & Ibn al-Hnaffiyah were opposed to Medinese rebellion. The latter even supported Yazid, saying "He is not as bad as you people say, I know him better than you";) In my opinion, removal will be better. We have enough good sources on this to use. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Al Ameer son: Vaglieri p. 226 is cited five times without further info. ?
@AhmadLX: It was the EI2 article. I still left a sentence cited to Elhami. Not a big deal, but do you have a ref that could replace it or should we just remove the material altogether? —Al Ameer (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I was to ask you the same question ;) It is an interesting comment on part of Ibn Hanzala and I read this same thing somewhere just two/three days ago, but can't recall which source was that. I looked up his EI2 entry today, but couldn't find the comment. I think Elhami should be removed noetheless, along with that comment for now. Whenever I come across the other source again, I will add it. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 03:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Found an interesting point here, that Ibn Ziyad was asked to lead the army to attack Ibn Zubayr, but he declined because Yazid had publicly disowned his actions in Karbala. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I read this somewhere (EI2 entry on the Harra). I’ll add it shortly. —Al Ameer (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of al-Harra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 00:39, 25 August 2019 (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): 
Prose looks good.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Exhaustively referenced.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Covers all aspects of the battle.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Covers both schools of thought on whether the city was pillaged, explains anti-Umayyad sentiment in an neutral fashion.
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 fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Good use of maps and images of the terrain, since images of historical figures from this period aren't really available.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I haven't reviewed many of your articles but I see them constantly at GAN so I know how hard you work. I made a couple minor changes to the prose (which you can revert if you disagree with them) and there are two suggested changes below, but nothing to hold up the review.  Easy pass as GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


### Comments
Name: Might be worth noting in the first sentence that the literal translation of يوم الحرة is "the day of al-Harra", not the battle of al-Harra.
Prelude: The last sentence here is the first mention of Vaglieri, it should have a link and some indication of who she was. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cerebellum: Thank you for your review, copyedits and kind words. There will be more nominations to come ;) Al Ameer (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)