# Talk:Iyad ibn Ghanm

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iyad ibn Ghanm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 18:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Iyad's date and place of death are in the article, so could we have them in the infobox please.
A map would be helpful.
Why is al-Jazira in italics? Likewise Jund Hims and Jund Qinnasrin.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Al Ameer son. Apologies if my start to this assessment was a bit brusque. It looks like a solid article. The three points above were my first thoughts on skimming it. In addition:
Lead.

"He was among the handful of Qurayshi tribesmen to embrace Islam early on" I am not sure that "early on" conveys any information to a reader. (Unless they already know what it means.)
"Later, in 637," Is there a reason why you do not similarly give the dates of his other governorships in the lead? (Dumat al-Jandal.)
"left much of the captured towns and their inhabitants intact" I don't think that you can leave inhabitants "intact". Perhaps 'left much of the captured towns intact and most of their inhabitants unharmed...'?
Optional. "According to historian Leif Inge Ree Petersen, Iyad "received little attention" ". I would prefer it if you left the "has" in before ""received little attention". To me it makes relevant difference to how it would be read.
Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I believe I've addressed your concerns/suggestions as far as the lead and infobox are concerned and added a map of the Jazira. As far as the italics, it is because they are the Arabic transliterations for those districts i.e. Jund Hims is Homs Military District, al-Jazira is Upper Mesopotamia, etc. This seems to be the way Arabic, Greek and Latin names for military districts, legions and so on are typically styled in Wikipedia articles unless I'm mistaken. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for those.

From the MoS. "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English. However, proper names (such as place names) in other languages are not usually italicized..." So place names like al-Jazira et al should not be in italics.
Infobox. Optional. Personally, when I don't know a birth and or death date I put "Unknown" into the infobox. Eg see here. So you you may want to consider putting in Unkown against date of birth. Entirely your choice.
I think that if you read "Early life" with fresh eyes you will find that you are taking a lot for granted. Consider slipping a sentence or two of background in there. Eg, where are we talking about geographically. What is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah - might it be better to briefly describe it and link the description? "the peace negotiations at Hudaybiyya between the Islamic prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh of Mecca"- again, a little opaque to a reader who doesn't already know the situation. Just some thoughts which I shall leave with you for now.
"an Arab tribal revolt in the oasis town of Dumat al-Jandal during the Ridda wars" Possibly add 'of 632 to 633'?
"In 638, Iyad was dispatched by Abu Ubayda to subdue Aleppo (Beroea) in northern Syria, then part of the Byzantine Empire. Abu Ubayda set up camp around the city, prompting the townspeople to negotiate their surrender with Iyad." I am a little confused by this. If "Iyad was dispatched by Abu Ubayda" how come Abu Ubayda was there to set up camp; and if Abu Ubayda was camped around the city, why did it surrender to Iyad?
"from its Byzantine commanders for refusing to pay the tributes promised to the Muslims" This may read better as 'because they had refused to pay...'
"In August 639, Iyad led a 5,000-strong army toward Raqqa (Kallinikos) in al-Jazira, raided the city's environs, but faced resistance from its defenders." I think that your tenses don't quite follow. Possibly '... in al-Jazira; raiding the city's environs, but facing resistance from its defenders.'?
Link patrician.
"According to historian, Iyad captured the city in 639 or 640." Is there a word missing after "historian"?
"which ultimately capitulated after negotiations with Iyad. Iyad then received Harran's". "Iyad" twice in two words jars a bit. Maybe delete "with Iyad"?
"By 640, Iyad successively conquered Saruj, Jisr Manbij and Tell Mawzin." Grammatically I think that should be 'Iyad had successively'.
"Iyad continued toward Arzanene, then to Bitlis and finally to Khilat; all cities surrendered after negotiations with their patricians." This may read better as 'all three cities'.
"Iyad ultimately ended up in Hims, where he died in 641." This does not read as very encyclapediac - "ended up". Could you think of a better phrase?
More to follow.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: All of the above have been taken care of now, I believe. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
That is a rapid response. I like the way that you are picking up things that I haven't mentioned . I have disambiguated the patrician link in line with my suggestion above. Let me know if you are not happy with this.

"According to 9th-century biographer Ibn Sa'd, "not a foot was left of Mesopotamia unsubdued by Iyad ibn Ghanm", and that Iyad "effected the conquest of..." Grammatically you need to lose "that", or recast the sentence.
"Wikipedia discourages extended quotes; is there any reason why you couldn't paraphrase the whole thing in your own words? This is an open question, not a requirement.
Al-Baladhuri needs an OCLC and a publisher location.
Canard is too early for an ISBN. You need an OCLC or an originally published date.
Donner needs an ISBN (9781400847877).
I will come back to the rest tomorrow, my time.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Done, though I couldn't find an oclc for the Canard source. Also, you might want to take a fresh look at the Assessment section after I paraphrased the long quote. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
There have been quite a few changes, so I am going through the whole article again. If I have marked a comment as "Optional" then it is a suggestion only.

"Afterward, he became a top military aide" Optional, personally I preferred your wording in the main article - "close aide".
Could you link the first mention of al-Jazira in the lead.
"but was dismissed by the latter due to allegations that he used his office to accept gifts or bribes". Optional. I think that it should be '... that he had used his office...'
"and stationed a small garrison in Edessa" seems to be contradicted by "Petersen notes that Iyad did not establish garrisons to maintain control of the captured cities, with the exception of Samosata..."
"the contemporary accounts revealed his specific modus operandi". Optional. To my eye that would read better as 'the contemporary accounts reveal his specific...'
IMHO you have done a sound job of rewriting the Assessment section.
Spot checks suggest that the article accurately reflects the sources.
Al-Tabari (1993) and Theophilus of Edessa are in the Bibliography but are not cited. They need to be either removed altogether or placed in a 'Further reading' section.
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I’ve made those adjustments and did some rearranging/copyediting of the Samosata garrison bit in the Assessment section. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations. This is a fine article, you have clearly put a lot of work into it and IMO it meets all of the GA criteria. I am happy to assess it as a Good Article. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Thank you for the assessment and for the thorough review that has significantly improved the article’s quality. —Al Ameer (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)