Talk:Nasr ibn Sayyar/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 20:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is awkward: Nasr was a military leader with long service and experience in Khurasan. Already in 705 he participated in a campaign along the upper Oxus River, and this: This led to resentment towards his person from the Yemenis, especially, around Balkh
- Resentment towards his person is passive voice.
  - And? I don't think passive voice is forbidden, so what exactly is the problem?
    - Passive voice isn't forbidden, but is less direct and weaker than active voice. Which reads better, something like: "This led the Yemenis, especially those from around Balkh, to resent him, etc." or the sentence as it currently stands?
      - I really think the passive voice is better here and more "direct" in its meaning than the active voice, since I want to emphasize the resentment, not the Yemenis.
        I don't agree, but your phrasing is perfectly understandable so I'm not gonna fuss about it any further.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is confusing: With 4,000 men, Ibn Surayj marched on Balkh and took the city, although Nasr disposed of 10,000 men. Do you mean to say that Ibn Surayj had 4,000 troops while Nasr had 10,000?
- Nasr disposed of 10,000?
  - Yes, "disposed of" as in "had at his disposal". I don't see how this could be confused with "getting rid of", but I've changed it to "commanded" just in case.
    - You and I know exactly what you meant, but disposed is a very uncommon term in this context and liable to confuse a reader.
      - Point taken, you are probably better qualified to judge this than me ;)
There's a missing word or two here, I think. As a result, both Ali al-Kirmani and Nasr separately appealed to Abu Muslim, who now could the balance of power, for aid against each other,
Need publisher location for most sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sturmvogel! I've copyedited the problematic passages and completed the missing bibliographical data. Constantine ✍ 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still a couple of problems with wording as mentioned above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixed" the second one, but I don't really get what the problem is with the first. Constantine ✍ 07:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I've explained it better now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]