# Talk:Muslim conquest of Sicily

This review is transcluded from Talk:Muslim conquest of Sicily/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Simon Burchell (talk · contribs) 16:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, 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): 

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 fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Comments
Reading through now, and will no doubt add as I go. First impressions are that this is a fine article. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been adding some wikilinks and redlinks: if any are inappropriate, feel free to revert.
There are a lot of personal names in the article, and I can't tell which are particularly notable. It would be good to scan through and wikilink or redlink those individuals that are worthy of their own article.
A brief section summarising weapons, armour, seige weapons (if any) etc. used by the belligerents would be helpful for those unfamiliar with the period/region.
The article has both jihād and jihad - best to be consistent.
The article would benefit from some simple maps showing Byzantine and Muslim movements over the years, but that won't affect GA pass/fail.
Background

NPOV: It was only the rise of the Muslim menace that... - consider rephrasing, perhaps it was only the rising threat from the expanding Muslims or somesuch.
Abu'l-Abbas - can this be linked, or redlinked, as appropriate.
I've changed this to his other name, Abdallah I, to avoid confusion with the later Abu'l-Abbas.
Euphemius' rebellion

Photeinos - again, can this be linked or redlinked.
Muslim landing and siege of Syracuse, 827–828

Is Abu Zaki al-Kinani notable enough to be redlinked?
Not as far as I know.
Expeditions of 832-836

the Byzantines however could not prevent it from reaching Palermo and were driven off by a squadron from Palermo under Muhammad ibn al-Sindi - two occurrences of "Palermo" in close succession doesn't read well.
beheading the Christians taken captive, while a Muslim cavalry raid reached the eastern parts of the island around Mount Etna, burning the villages and crops and taking captives - "captives" twice in the same sentence.
Expeditions of 837-841

The section has a disambig notification.
his enemies accused him to Theophilos of contacts with the Arabs - "accused him to Theophilos" is somewhat clumsy and needs rephrasing.
in 839–840, the Muslims reduced the fortresses of... - "reduced the fortresses"? It is not clear what this means. Did they make them smaller?
It is another way of saying "captured".
Muslim capture of Malta and Syracuse, 870–878

with Reggio in Calabria and now Malta in their hands - this is missing a comma somewhere, and clarification. Perhaps "with the town of Reggio, in Calabria, and now Malta..."?
"Reggio in Calabria"  is the full name of the town, as there was another town of the same name (Rhegion/Rhegium) near Constantinople, and there still is a Reggio nell'Emilia.
The final para begins with In 875, the weak and pleasure-loving Aghlabid emir... - in what sense weak? Perhaps this could be clarified?
Governorship of Khafaja ibn Sufyan, 861–869

Khafaja led his army again towards Syracuse and Catania - "again" - is Khafaja once again leading his army, or once again moving towards Syracuse and Catania. If the former, the "again" can be dropped, if the latter then it should be moved to the end "towards Syracuse and Catania again". It looks out of place at the moment.
I thought it was evident that it meant the second; "again towards" has this meaning, otherwise it would be "again led" or "led his army again, towards". Anyhow, I am changing it.
sortied from the city and defeated Muhammad's men with heavy casualties - this needs clarification; who suffered the heavy casualties?
References

Since note 110 has some text, it may be worth seperating it into a footnotes section - it seems rather lost among all the straight cites.
Yes, but I am loath to have en entire new section for a single footnote.
AGF on book sources - the archive.org copy of Bury is truncated before the relevant pages (no action necessary).
I've finished reading through this fascinating and well-written article, and will give you time to address the points above. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Simon and thanks for taking the time to review this and for your copyedits so far! I have fixed most of the outstanding issues you have raised. I'll go the article over once more later today, and will try to find some time to make a couple of maps over the weekend. Apart from prose issues, what I would like to know is whether the topic was accessible to someone with (presumably) no prior knowledge. I've noted the request for a military summary, which I will consider, but I am asking more in terms of context and level of detail. Do you feel there is more to be said, e.g. in the background or aftermath sections? Cheers, Constantine   ✍  12:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy with your changes so far. In terms of background, it could do with a very brief summary of the division of the Roman Empire, and rise of Byzantium. It could also use, again very briefly, a summary of the origins of the Muslim expansion. The article is very good in describing the history of the conquest but is lacking in an overview of military structure; I already mentioned that a summary of weapons and armour would be good; a summary of the basic fighting unit would also be appropriate, if the sides were fielding organised armies, also where combatants were being recruited from, i.e., were they drafted peasants, professional soldiers, adventurers, or private units sponsored by individual nobles. One can readily understand the motivations of the defenders, but what motivated the attackers - loot? desire for more land? religious differences? Any additional detail would be welcome. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Also useful, somewhere near the beginning, would be a paragraph summarising the geography of Sicily (mountainous regions and important passes/routes/valleys), and Sicily in a regional geographic context. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I've begun working on a set of maps, and am seeking for some additional info on military issues. I have to sya though, that there isn't much to go around: the regular Byzantine military, as covered (not too well, admittedly) in Byzantine army, played an intermittent role, and resistance seems to have been mostly local. On the Aghlabid military, I have been unable to find much so far. On the motives of the conquest, that is already mentioned, and stressed, in the background section: Sicily was both rich and strategically located; any expansionist power holding Tunisia was bound to covet it, as, indeed, happened in the reverse. Good point re the geography, I'll have a look, although I would prefer to include anything only in so far as it is pertinent to this particular conflict, i.e. whether and how the terrain played a role in how the conflict evolved; a general geographic description is outside the scope of the article. Constantine   ✍  14:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Everything you mentioned above would be good in the article. None of this needs to be covered in any great depth - I don't know much about the geography, but something along the lines of (for example)  "a generally mountainous interior crossed by shallow valleys, with most of the major population centres located on coastal plains" or whatever may be the case, and the names and locations of the most important towns. I'll hold off for a few more days to allow you to add any additional info; I'm generally happy with the state of the article. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm passing this article - it is well written and comprehensive. As mentioned previously, future expansion could include overviews of geography and military technology/organisation. Best regards, and well done! Simon Burchell (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I got a bit sidetracked with other things, but I will definitely keep up working on the areas you highlighted. Thanks again for a very thorough review! Constantine   ✍  13:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I love this article, well sourced and well organized, it is like heaven to the reader. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"Although Sicily had been raided by the Muslims since the mid-7th century [...]"
The Muslims? All of them?
I would call the lede blatantly racist, but Islam is not a race. What's the right word? 91.10.15.140 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You will be shocked to learn that when the Germans invaded Poland it wasn't every single German. Srnec (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
very silly comment - come on, Anon IP - get it together before you post on the TP's . . .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250  (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

User:VANETTISM1991 has chosen to unilaterally change Muslim to Arab with no explanation, discussion, or consensus.
According to Warfare in the Norman Mediterranean, by Georgios Theotokis, page 80;"The Muslim army which invaded Sicily in 827 AD is said to have consisted of ten thousand infantrymen and seven hundred cavalry in about one hundred ships. Its leadership was largely Arab, and Arabs formed the elite of this force. However, the majority were Berbers..[..]..Other soldiers included political exiles from Al-Andalus in the West and Khurasanis from the East." 
So clearly the invasion force was not just Arabs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)