Talk:Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik

Some tidbits of info

There's some information found on page 34 of this source about Maslama's governorship of Jund Qinnasrin: Bacharach, Jere L. (1996). "Marwanid Umayyad Building Activities: Speculations on Patronage". In Gulru Necipoglu. The Encyclopaedia of Islam Part 157. 13. BRILL. ISBN 9004106332.

The basic tidbits are the following:

• According to Jere L. Bacharach, Maslama was the likely founder of the Great Mosque of Aleppo.
• He was governor of Qinnasrin sometime before 710 during al-Walid's reign and continued in this role during Caliph Sulayman'd rule. This explains why many historians claim the Great Mosque's construction was started by al-Walid and finished by al-Sulayman.
• Maslama likely used Aleppo as a major base during his campaigns against the Byzantines, for which the mosque's construction would have been appropriate.
• He was possibly responsible for a number of unspecified construction works in the ancient town of Qinnasrin.
• Maslama's role as commander against the Byzantines, and his governorship of Jazira, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Armenia are all better known than his governorship of Jund Qinnasrin.

I would add at least some of this information, but I'm not sure how best to integrate it into the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Duplication detector Copyvio detector Disambiguate links External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 01:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Haven't reviewed one of yours for a while, so it's just time methinks... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it will be a pleasure ;). I intended to have this nominated much earlier, but I haven't had much time lately... Constantine ✍ 18:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Toolbox check

• No dab or external link issues.

Prose

• I know ancient and medieval literature seems to be replete with seasonal references rather than more precise timings, but is it possible to avoid "summer", etc, and use "middle of the year" or some other appropriate term?
• I don't have an issue with the use of "winter" in the siege continued into the winter, if it's to denote colder and harsher conditions for the besiegers, as opposed to simply a time of year (if it is just time of year, prefer to see "end of the year" or some such if we possible can).

Referencing

• Fully cited and references appear okay.
• You have Harv errors in the References section -- use this script to highlight them.

Supporting materials

• Infobox and image licensing look good, although File:47-cropped-manasses-chronicle.jpg has a couple of tags that could be tidied up.

Structure/coverage -- seem appropriate.

Summary -- good work, nothing serious holding this back from GA, just like to get your responses to the above points first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've fixed the Harvard issue. On the two prose issues, given the fact that campaigning by land or sea until quite recently was a seasonal affair (and the Arabs even classed their raids into Asia Minor as "spring", "summer" and "winter" raids), the references to spring or summer are IMO rather more appropriate than "middle of the year" etc., plus, as you have guessed, they are the only indication as to the time period that the sources contain. I've changed the one case where a more precise date is known (Leo's entry into Cple), but otherwise I am loath to change anything. I've also clarified the wintering before Cple issue, adding that the winter was unusually harsh and long. Anything else? Any suggestions for future expansion or spots you'd like to see better clarified? Constantine ✍ 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Re. the seasonal thing, I understand. It's not something that concerns me greatly, although it does some people (there's a discussion going on as we speak at Talk:Norman conquest of England). You can only be as precise as your sources, so if you've done your best with them that's all you can do. As to potential expansion/clarification, although this era (and area) interests me, it's by no means my pet subject, so I tend to come to your articles to learn! Thus I tend to approach an article like this by what's in it rather than what might not be in it... ;-) Anyway, I'm ready to slap the GA tag on the article, just waiting a bit to ensure stability as they've been some new edits during the review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Passing now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)