Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Yarmouk/archive1

Battle of Yarmouk

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to put it forward for the status of feature article. I did a mistake previously by directly putting it for tht status. I was given some suggestions to improve the article. They are all done now, so hows it look now ? any suggestion to improve it further ?

Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • You need more bibliographical details on the two Treadgold references, they should match the other references given.
  • Alphabetize your references
  • Note that for the Runciman ref, it was originally published earlier than 1991. You should note that the edition you're using is a reprint. Double check your other references to check this.
  • Your Elton ref is a review article of a book, this isn't the most high quality source available, suggest replacing it.
  • Your book references need publishers for all of them, at the very least.
  • Your ISBN for the Akram ref is incorrect. It's this work, correct? I'll note that this isn't exactly held by a lot of libraries, both editions only show one library holding each.
  • Using gibbon is not a good idea. We're talking a source that is over 200 years old, history has advanced quite a bit since then. Strongly suggest replacing.
  • You've got the wrong publisher with the Haldon isbn, it's Stroud, not Arcadia for that particular ISBN.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done.
  

any thing else ?? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• • You should wait for comments on the prose content. This may be a few days' coming. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be waiting.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from doncram Just a quick comment: the lede is confusing to me. It includes "The battle consisted of a series of engagements that lasted for six days in August 636, ..... The Battle of Yarmouk is regarded as one of the most decisive battles in military history,[5][6] and it marked the first great wave of Islamic conquests after the death of Muhammad, heralding the rapid advance of Islam into the then Christian Levant. The last Roman-Persian Wars ended in 627, with Emperor Heraclius finally emerging victorious...." It seems like some reorganization is needed, or some transition. Why jump abruptly from talking about the battle in 636 to something happening in 627? Perhaps the stuff about 627 belongs in the separate "prelude" section. I believe there is a good guideline on ledes at wp:lede to help in the rewriting. Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

.

• thanks for ur comments, i hv removed it as it was already mentioned in detail in prelude section.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

.

• As I have stated on the discussion page Talk:Battle of Yarmouk. Why the total ignoring of John B. Glubb's THE GREAT ARAB CONQUEST? Before that book, hardly anyone outside the Islamic world, knew about Yarmouk much less carried about it? He was the first person who ever tried to make heads or tails out of that battle according to the rules of WP articles -- ie neutrality and unbiased. And this was back in 1963??? And their can be no claim that his chapters leading to the battle, the battle itself, or after the battle are not detailed enough. The chapter on the battle is 18 pages. And the type is small, unlike today's books. Just curious? I mean, historians have the right to disagree about the conclusions or facts of others. But they usually quote about the first book that gives in depth details about a battle and why they disagree with the author?--Jackehammond (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We didnt used it, is not becoz he isnt reliable, its because we havnt read it, the modern works tht we have read and used in the article must have taken their research through Glubbs's work.

So its fine any ways. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Mohammd, Glubb's book is 1963 and I believe is still a modern work. Most historians and authors of have used his research, but then basically plagiarized it to disagree with him. And those in the Muslim world who have done that (for example a Pakistani retired general) have done it -- in the opinion of many -- out of pride and envy and wounded dignity. They are upset that a non-Muslim did the best research on the first 60 years of Islamic battles and warfare. Similar to many historians today in the USA who are prideful and envious of the fact that UK authors can research and print better histories of the USA and its battles and wars. If you read the book, from a neutral and biased approach, I guarantee you that you will be astonished. I have re-read it two times, because it is the only detailed in depth book on that subject, even today. Glubb's map of the Plain of Mekka, at the time of Muhammd is one that many historians and TV producers have used without giving Glubb credit. Note, I have left more detailed information on the Yarmouk talk page. --Jackehammond (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

.

Dear Mr. Mohammand, I have read the whole article and looked at the maps on Battle of Yarmouk and it does a dis-service to the memory of Khalid ibn al Waleed. Khalid had by any shadow of doubt snatched victory from the jaws of defeat "twice" similar to the American Civil War commander Confederate General Stonewall Jackson. They Byzantines had the main Arab-Muslim forces "fixed" at Deraa on the Yarmouk River gorges and they came into the rear with another massive army to take what is now Beersheeba and then Aila and cut off Khalid and his forces, forcing them to fight with an army in their rear and in their front or flee east into the desert. Instead Khalid did a masterful counter march and defeated the main Byzantines army north of Beersheeba and then in another counter march back to the Yarmouk area before the Byzantines there could could do anything and then defeating that army. Sealing the Byzantines fate south of Taurus Mts. It was masterful. Not equal till Napoleon to some. And even superior to Napoleon and Jackson. But very little is known about the Battle of Yarmouk. It is like the Battle of the Red Cliffs in China. A brilliant battle, but little in the way of reliable records of the actual details of the battle. But instead of accepting that -- ie as Glubb did, while still praising Khalid as one of the greatest military commanders in history -- Muslim writers have decided to accept conjectures as facts. Similar as in the US where many writers, instead of accepting what happened at Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941, believe the Japanese success could only have been possible due to a massive conspiracy on the part of President Roosevelt and not the gross negligence and disobedience to orders, and writing different scenarios and conjectures as facts, claiming since there are no proof to prove that it did not happen the way they claim, then it is a fact -- challenging those that disagree to prove a negative. General Glubb gave glory and honor to Khalid, but stating the known fact, and what "possibly" could have happened at Yarmouk. Because along with Khalid's other military victories, he did not have to have conjectures to build his reputation. And sadly, in later decades, there will be historical researchers, who will come along, when political correctness and the desire to pander has cooled, and they will harm Khalid and his warriors reputation, by using the sources you and others are quoting to smear his reputation. Ignoring all other historians like General Glubb. Just as American Civil War historians, use "Gone With The Wind" as an example to smear some good American Civil War historians of the late 1800s. Finally, this will be my last message on this subject. I have seen other articles like these. And they seem to gain a momentum of their own that at the time are unstoppable. Anyway, I have some air to ground rockets, antitank missiles and an aircraft company I have to do some editing on that I have been requested to do. But I do pity the memory of one of the greatest generals in history: Khalid ibn al Waleed. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

.