# Talk:Pro-Fatimid conspiracy against Saladin

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pro-Fatimid conspiracy against Saladin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 07:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 01:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Comments

Perhaps a short introduction (3 or 4 sentences) about the Fatimid Caliphate would be useful: its establishment and decline, its status as an important power, and its most important institutions (viziers, the iqta' system, the major mamluk groups).
Good point, done, to a degree. I won't go into the iqta or the mamluk groups, this would be too much of an excursion into minutiae that aren't really relevant here IMO.
The complex political and military manoeuvring that followed ended in January 1169 with the appointment of Shirkuh as vizier by the Fatimid caliph, al-Adid. When Shirkuh died shortly after, his nephew Saladin was chosen as a compromise candidate to take his place.[3][4] Saladin's new position was awkward: officially the head of government of a nominally Isma'ili Shi'a state, Saladin himself was a Sunni leading a Sunni army, as well as being a subordinate of Nur al-Din, whose championship of the Sunni cause against the Isma'ilis was well known. Consider rewording, since all statements about Saladin could/should first be applied to Shirkuh.
Shirkuh did not live or rule long enough for this awkward situation to be relevant; Saladin did, and it is his balancing act that is described here.
...the appointment of Shirkuh as vizier... Consider introducing this office
Hopefully done sufficiently in the new background paragraph.
...Saladin was chosen as a compromise candidate... By whom and between whom?
Clarified.
...Saladin was chosen as a compromise candidate...the various factions and power groups within the Fatimid establishment, especially within the palace, were bound to oppose him. Contradiction?
Saladin was a compromise candidate between the officer cliques of the Zengid army; the Fatimid establishment might have initially hoped to make use of him (seeing him as an inexperienced youth) but they definitely opposed his pro-Sunni and anti-Fatimidm policies.
...the various factions and power groups within the Fatimid establishment, especially within the palace... Perhaps some examples, especially those groups that would later take part in the conspiracy?
We only have very fragmentary information here. As the article hopefully makes clear, even the sources about the conspiracy are from hostile writers, and it is not entirely clear whether there was a conspiracy in the first place.
Was iqta' indeed a military fief?
That's the closest gloss I could think of without going into excessive detail.
I do not like it but cannot suggest an alternative. :)
... the majordomo Mu'tamin al-Khilafa... According to my search, he is not mentioned as majordomo in the two books cited. Brett refers to him as palace eunuch.
Halm explicitly calls him thus: "Es war der Obereunuch und Majordomus Muʾtaman ad-Daula" (Kalifen und Assassinen, p. 285)
According to the medieval chroniclers, Mu'tamin made contact with the Crusaders, inviting them to invade Egypt. Saladin would be forced to confront them, leaving Cairo. This would allow Mu'tamin and his supporters to mount a coup to depose him, and then strike at Saladin's forces from the rear while he was facing the Crusaders. Consider consolidating the three sentences (Perhaps, "According to the medieval chroniclers, Mu'tamin urged the Crusaders to invade Egypt which would force Saladin to leave Cairo to confront them, and allow Mu'tamin and his supporters to depose him.")
Done, with a few tweaks.
...According to the medieval chroniclers, ... Perhaps "pro-Ayyubite/anti-Fatimid/Sunnite medieval chroniclers"?
Hmmm, I think this should be covered by the follow-up sentence on modern historians' views?
..., as well as Christian and Jewish scribes of the Fatimid chancery... Did still exist the Fatimid chancery? Were they still scribes?
Good point, added an important 'former' there. I added also that the scribes were largely taken over into the successor regime.
..., as well as his ambition to extend his rule into Syria... I am not sure that these ambitions were dangerous from Nizari perspective, since Syria was ruled by the Sunnite Nur ad-Din.
Very good point. Possibly Lewis is projecting backwards here, but this is part of the puzzle why the sudden hostility emerged between the two. AFAICT Lewis' implied argument is that while the Assassins had managed to live so far with Nur al-Din as their neighbour, Saladin was proving to be more dangerous as shown by his complete destruction of the Ismaili regime in Egypt. Certainly Saladin was expanding into Syria already in summer 1174, so Sinan had reasons to fear he was a target. Have added a little bit to that effect.
Saladin could not be confident about Nur al-Din's reaction... To what? Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
To the report about Saladin's conduct in Egypt.
Lede: ...and replaced with the Ayyubid dynasty in 1171 I would delete or rephrase the sentence (", which had been abolished in 1171 by Saladin, the first Ayyubid ruler of Egypt")
Done.
...they are reported to have contacted the Crusaders of the Kingdom of Jerusalem...The conspirators reportedly also contacted the Nizari Isma'ili Order of Assassins... I would avoid "reportedly": "The conspirators allegedly contracted/were said to contract the Nizari Isma'ili Order of Assassins..."
Done.
...conspiracy's... Is it necessary?
Removed.
Article title

Does the title "unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguishe it from other subjects"? I understand there were further Pro-Fatimid conspiracies against Saladin during the following years.
Hmmm, does this come from the article itself? Because that is definitely not the case, and it shouldn't leave that impression. Constantine   ✍  11:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
You are right. I was misled by myself. Borsoka (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Image review

Both pictures are properly tagged and sourced. Borsoka (talk)
Source review

The article is verified by multiple high-standard academic sources. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
References 14, 15, 42 are correct. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
All issues were addressed, so I happily pass this interesting, well-written article. Thank you for completing it. Borsoka (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your review with an eye to detail:) Constantine   ✍  11:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)