Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the fifth Nasrid Sultan of Granada, following the first four whose articles have been reviewed in FAC (Muhammad I, II, III and Nasr). He took the throne after deposing his uncle Nasr in a civil war, which continued after his ascension as Nasr tried to retake the throne with help from their Christian neighbor Castile. Not only he repulsed repeated invasions from the larger Castile, he managed to snatch some border territories in a counter attack. He seemed destined for a successful rule, but he was murdered at the age of 46 by a relative. I've tried to find all relevant information about him, mostly about the geopolitical conflicts, domestic administration, background and legacy, and I hope it's ready for FA review. HaEr48 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"On the other hand, according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry". Suggest deleting "On the other hand".
Done. I added to emphasise that the timeline in EoI is different from the timeline from Vidal Castro described in the same paragraph, do you think it is not needed?
Personally, no. It's not as if it were a fundamental difference. I have tried to think of a way you could emphasise it, but I really think that it is better as it is.
Done, looking forward to working with you. HaEr48 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Are you going to work your way through all of the Nasrids? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I don't know. There are about 20 sultans so it's not going to be that that easy :) I'll probably keep doing it as long as it's still enjoyable. HaEr48 (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"his promise of guaranteeing". A guarantee is a promise. Suggest 'his guarantee of'.
"securing an agreement and support for a military campaign". Optional: delete "an agreement and".
Done, you're right we don't have to say "agreement". HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"who also authorised the use of funds levied by the church" Maybe add 'to support the war'? (I assume that was the case?)
Done, yes this is correct. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Peter invaded Granadan territories in May 1319 and captured Tíscar on the 26th. Peter was joined by his co-regent, Infante John, and they advanced to Granada in June. Ismail's troops under Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula began engaging the invading army's rearguard on 25 June." Suggest mentioning that the Castilians had stopped advancing and were withdrawing, and that's why the Granadans were attacking their rearguard.
Good point, I had missed that detail. Added now, as well as the number of troops on both sides which I found while re-reading the source. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"killing and capturing the enemy as well as taking their property" This, IMO, doesn't read well. Maybe 'killing and capturing many Castilians and looting the camp' or similar?
done ('killing and capturing many Castilians and looting the camp'). I was worried about saying "Castilians" too many times, but I guess it's better than saying "the enemy". HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"and the thorough defeat of their forces ended the threat to Ismail's throne" I don't know what the sources say, but do you want to specify 'external threat', or Castilian threat'?
Castilian threat. There was still Aragon (which was technically also in a crusade but actually didn't do anything significant at this point), which is explained later in the paragraph.
"Nasr's death eliminated his claim to Ismail's throne" This seems a bit of a statement of the obvious!
Replaced by "eliminated a rival claim". The idea is that Ismail's rule is now uncontested. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In which case can I suggest going with the explanation you have just given above? Eg 'Nasr's death meant that Ismail's rule was now uncontested and ...'.
The ensuing Battle of the Vega of Granada resulted in a complete Muslim victory. Both Peter and John died, apparently from natural causes, demoralising the Castilian troops whose remaining commanders began a disorderly retreat.
Et el Infante Don Pedro metió mano á la espada por los acapdillar, et nunca pudo: et á golpes se tollió todo el cuerpo, et perdió la fabla, et cayó del caballo muerto en tierra.
Falling off a horse doesn't sound like "natural causes" to me.
Indeed, he fell off his horse, I was using "natural causes" more broadly, as in "not killed by the enemy". There seemed to be different versions of how John and Peter died, I was trying to avoid delving too much as this is Ismail's biography but I can see now the original passage can be misleading. Added more details now, please take a look. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's too much irrelevant content feel free to scale it back, I just think we shouldn't say "natural causes" when at least one version of the story has Peter falling off the horse only after receiving wounds / blows first, which is enemy action. Even if it was an accident-in-combat, that's still functionally a combat fatality not natural causes. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was the first recorded military use of cannon on the Iberian Peninsula
This is an impressive claim. Did the sources elaborate on how exactly the Granadans got the cannons? Build them themselves? Buy them? From who? How reliable is this? According to Cannon#Islamic_world, it calls this usage "vague" and only denotes it as a "a possible appearance in the Emirate of Granada by the 1320s and 1330s, though evidence is inconclusive." I can understand the historical skepticism here - is it possible that the word for cannon was used here, but was actually describing some earlier proto-artillery piece, such as Harvey apparently thinking it was Greek Fire instead? This does seem a little early for cannons, honestly. I think including either some more skepticism of the claim, or else explaining why these historians think the skeptics cited in the Cannon article (also a FA!) are overly suspicious.
Indeed, I initially found it curious and might be suspicious too, which was why I found it worth checking in various sources, and I added them in the footnote. I now expanded the footnote into its own section, explaining what each historian said. Basically we have Vidal Castro, O'Callaghan, and Harvey saying cannon, and Arié saying Greek fire. I think it's fair to treat Arié's opinion as the minority, and additionally her work (1973) is the oldest. Among these four, Harvey is only one to bother discussing both points of view, and he too decides to argue for cannon. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a separate section to explicitly discuss this and the clashing historical views forward is a step forward, thanks. I'll buy that "this was really cannons" is the consensus among scholars of Granada, I just wonder if that's the consensus of scholars of cannons. If cannons didn't reach Iberia until decades later, it doesn't matter what sources seemingly indicate they were there earlier, similar to a hypothetical report of fixed-wing aircraft in the Napoleonic Wars from an otherwise trustworthy source; it's impossible. Cannon#Islamic_world cites at least some scholars arguing for a much later date of cannons reaching this far. Checking "The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History" which the Cannon article cites...
In Iran and Central Asia, firm evidence of firearms emerges only in the late fourteenth century. In India the first clear references do not occur until around 1442. In the Middle East and other western Islamic areas, the earliest reliable references are from the 1360s or 1370s, although some evidence suggests that guns were present in Andalusia as early as the 1330s. Russian chronicles seem not to have reliable mentions of firearms until 1382. (...) We will probably never know precisely when or how guns arrived in Europe, but what is clear is that it had happened by the 1320s, which is when the first unambiguous references to guns appear in European sources. The most famous is an illustration found in an illuminated manuscript of 1326–1327: Walter de Milemete’s De Nobilitatibus, sapientii et prudentiis regum (Concerning the Majesty, Wisdom, and Prudence of Kings). It shows what is unmistakably a gun with a large arrow emerging from it. A man has lowered a long stick to the touchhole to light it off.
Hmm, so some form of proto-cannon might have been in Europe in the 1320s, although 1326 is right at the edge. Unsure whether the author using "1330s" is a typo or is referring to some other incident involving cannons in Andalusia a decade later. Anyway, I suppose I'm just rambling at this point: this source isn't sufficiently on-point as to not be a potential SYNTH violation, but it's a general issue with Wikipedia sometimes when skeptical sources are all on the general topic ("astrology doesn't work"), and only credulous sources talk about specific claims ("the power of the Scorpius constellation can cure cancer") - the historians saying "this didn't happen until decades later" need to actually talk more specifically about the alleged cases that it maybe happened earlier. So I suppose the new article content is fine as is, especially since the 1340s usage seems pretty uncontroversial and that would indicate that the above passage simply wasn't including Granada within the "Islamic world." SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something not in the article currently: while Ismail's issue are mentioned, I don't see any mention of his wife and/or mistresses. I know that the time period was not exactly very interested in women, but is there truly no record left of them, not even a name? (I know I've asked this on an earlier FAC, but worth checking again, maybe the story will be different for Ismail.) SnowFire (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we have better luck for Ismail. Added this information now, in the #Family section. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SnowFire for the feedback, I have responded and adjusted the article accordingly. Please take a look and let me know what you think. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition of the Family section. Support. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we just need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: given where this review stands so far, may I have permission to start another nomination? HaEr48 (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me. --Ealdgyth (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
The two Diccionario Biográfico electrónico should be formatted the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nikkimaria for the review. Done both your suggestions. HaEr48 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
