Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Badr/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Badr

[edit]

According to the WikiProphet, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to write a good NPOV article on Islam. However, I have tried and rewritten the article from scratch, so any errors in it are mine and mine alone. It covers a decisive battle fought by Muhammad in 624. I would love feedback on it, so I can eventually nominate it for a Featured Article. (Currently there are none on Islam) Palm_Dogg 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An important article, on a topic not known to most people in my part of the world. Should help counter systematic bias. Already well written, but balance seems off for a truly great featured article. I have several suggestion below.

Most of references and quotes seem to be taken from historical source material. Although good quotes, and excellently footnoted, is their independant archaeological evidence for this battle? I assume not, lost in the sands of time, but clarify. I do not doubt the battle took place, but the specific names involved and numbers seem too exact for a historical (not religious) article. Example, are the Muslim graves recorded and countable?

For casualties and prisoners, the article quotes Ibn Ishaq and Al-Bukhari, basically two historical Muslim scholars. Are there surviving written records from the loosing Quraish side? Wendell 04:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are big comments.

  • First paragraph should be a summary of the key points of the article. In this first paragraph, the battle details are too detailed. Suggest summarize first paragraph and transition to the more important second paragragh; why this battle is so important.
    • The second sentence of the article, It was fought on Friday, March 17 624 CE (17 Ramadhan 2 AH), although a few sources place it in 623 seems out of place and too detailed. Important for elsewhere in the article, not the first paragraph.
    • How about this re-write: The Battle of Badr (Arabic بدر) was a key battle in the early days of Islam between Muhammad and his pagan opponents in Mecca. Prior to Badr, the Muslims and Meccans had fought several smaller skirmishes, but this was the first large-scale battle. Muhammad was leading a raiding party against a Quraish caravan when the much larger Qurayshi army surprised him. Retreating to a strong defensive position, Muhammad's well-discplined men managed to shatter the Meccan lines, killing several important Meccan leaders, including Muhammad's chief opponent Amr ibn Hisham.
  • Background section is obviously key....
    • First paragraph is great. Terrain, climate, population, tribes, religious diversity, all get their needed discussion.
    • But why two paragraphs on the life of Muhammad? Muhammad was born in Mecca... and Muhammad claimed... There is already a link to the main Muhammad article. They are good paragraphs, but needed for this article?
    • Consider a direct jump the last sentence: In 622 C.E., Muhammad and his followers were forced to flee Mecca to the neighboring city of Medina due to...... This migration is called the Hijra and marked the beginning of Muhammad's reign as a secular chief, in addition to religious leader.

If this becomes a featured article, many-many people with no background in Islam, Mecca, Medina, or Muhammad will read it. Thus consistent terminology is critical. Even after several read thoughs, I was confused by some shifting terms.

  • Article uses the different spellings of Quraish vs Quraysh and Quraishi vs Qurayshi
  • A section title is "The Ghazawāt", which is never explained. Two sentences later, a link to ghazw appears. Same root-words, same meaning? Can something be expanded?
  • What is the Badr? Name of an area? town? building? area wells? oasis? The use of the term implies Badr is a roadside inn with a series of wells. Correct?
    • Article says, army was approaching the wells at Badr and Badr was a traditional caravanserai, which was a roadside inn where caravans could rest and recover from the day's journey.
    • Later Article says, Badr was the name of a series of wells located on a small slope on the eastern side of the valley of Yalyal.
  • The simple battle box, and my summary of the article says the battle was between Muslims of Medina and Quraish of Mecca. However consistent terms seem to shift. Is this to avoid repeating the same phrase, or reflects a subtle difference I failed to see?
  • From the first paragraph, many different phrases are used, which to a causual reader will imply there are 3 or 4 sides to this conflict.
    • Muslims and Meccans had fought
    • Muhammad was leading a raiding party against a Quraish caravan..and...Qurayshi army.
    • The Quraysh army... launched an assault on the Muslim ranks
    • Muhammad's men ....shatter(ed) the Meccan lines
  • Just to drive home the point, is the Quraysh army the same as the Meccan Army? The terms are used interchangably in the article.
  • See the major section header.... The Muslim plan vs the The Meccan Plan
    • Should it be the Muslim Plan vs the Quraishi Plan or Medina Plan vs Meccan Plan ?
  • The article has two uses of Quraishi Muslims to refer to a sub-set of people. I am confused by the term Quraishi Muslims. Is this an aspect of a civil war and brother against brother, or a typo?
    • Three of the Ansar emerged....only wanted to fight the Muslim Quraish'
  • In the middle of the article, the Aftermath, Casualties and Prisoners section, the term Meccan Quraish is used for the first and only time. I am lost, why now call out Meccan Quraish? Did I miss some discussion of non-Meccan Quraish?
    • the Muslims took a number of Meccan Quraish prisoner.

Article says At this point, both armies began firing arrows at each other. Muhammad gave orders for the Muslims to employ their ranged weapons, and only engage the Quraish when they advanced. I truely do not understand what the sentence is trying to say, nor the tactics. Both sides were firing arrows (a ranged weapon). Then Muhammad ordered for his troops to emply ranged weapons (which they already were). Does engage in this sentence mean hand-to-hand melee combat? Wendell 04:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. Most of your points are valid, so I'll try and fix them. Briefly: Many of the Muslims (Including Muhammad) WERE Quraishi. In addition, there were a group of non-Quraishi Muslims called the Ansar. Finally, there were a group of nominal Muslims in Medina (Usually called "The Hypocrites") who thankfully did not play much of a role at Badr. Long story short this can be EXTREMELY confusing, so I'll try and clarify. I also didn't want to use the word "pagan" when describing the Quraishi Meccans, since that was a term only attributed to them by the Muslims. The battle was in many respects part of a civil war, which I will try and flesh out. In terms of Quraishi records, to my knowledge there are none. Badr is in Saudi Arabia, which is not exactly hospitable to archeologists, especially ones who want to dig up the bones of Muslim martyrs. Palm_Dogg 04:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (grrr...edit conflict)
  • The dates given: March 17 624 CE (17 Ramadhan 2 AH) should be wikilinked to explain what "CE", "Ramadhan" and "AH" are, especially since they are not set up to auto-date format.
  • For the infobox
    • The image caption says "(Minus Muhammad" should be "(minus Muhammad"
    • Dewiki "624", it adds little to the article
    • "The Muslim Conquests" is a redirect to "Islamic conquests" - should be fixed.
    • The Islamic conquests page itself is confusing in this context, as it states that they "began with the death of Muhammad" which makes it odd that the Battle of Badr is considered part of them.
  • Hijaz is probably better as Hejaz
  • "(Present-day Saudi Arabia" should be "(present day Saudi Arabia"
  • "by name in the Quran." - the quran is the scripture muslims abide by. The quran is the guidance for mankind. The quran was revealed to the prophet muhammad(pbuh) by Angel Gabriel, by the permission of Allah
  • Muhammad section:
    • A bit long, as this is about a battle, and we already link to the main Muhammad article.
    • Unwiki lone years
    • The highway image seems very out of place here. Maybe replace with the "battlefield today" image below?
  • Good use of images throughout
  • The "Islam" infobox appears very low on the page - maybe move it up or simply remove completely, as there is already a different infobox at the top.
  • The legend inside the "Map of the battle" image is too small to read easily. Consider enlarging it or removing it from the image.
  • Wiki non-common terms where they first appear, such as "hadith" and "caliph" (although this seems to be the exception)
  • Dewiki common terms not vital to the article, especially in the opening section. I might unwiki "defense" and "fresh water"
  • "(Which is similar to" - same as above, watch the uppercase inside the opening parens. Uppercase is only needed to start a sentence or for proper nouns.
  • Image caption "The cover of a contemporary Muslim discussion on the battle" needs rewriting.
  • In the "Badr in history" section, bullets are used, but they don't always mix well with left-aligned images. Consider moving the image to the other side of the page here.
  • Excellent footnotes and references.
  • "Casualties and Prisoners" should be "Casualties and prisoners"
  • Add "Islamic conquests" to "See also".
  • (Listed in Alphabetical Order) should be de-capitalized.
  • "In keeping with the film" makes no sense when talking about the film
  • That's all for now. Very nice job. Turnstep 04:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the broader issues of content have been adressed at some length above (and this is rather outside of my area of interest); I'll briefly comment on some (minor) technical issues that are likely to come up in a FAC nom:

  • Category:Islamic battles needs a renaming to match the campaignbox (e.g. to Category:Battles of the Islamic conquests). This is rather outside the scope of the article, but it would be nice to take care of anyway.
  • The "See also" section should be kept minimal, in favor of working the links directly into the text. In particular, anything that is linked in the body of the article should not be listed there.
  • The succession box at the bottom is somewhat questionable. Was his life devoid of any events between Badr and Uhud?
  • When the Quran is cited in a footnote, the translation used should be indicated.

Hope that helps! —Kirill Lokshin 04:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tried to do most of your suggestions. Wendell, does that footnote at the beginning clarify everything? Palm_Dogg 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks really good. I anticipate supporting it on FAC after the above points are resolved.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I copyedited through the whole article. My last edit was to change the structure slightly, into a "Background," "Battle" (with subsections), "Aftermath/Implications," "Modern Cultural References" format. I hope you find the last change helpful; I'm confident the copyediting made a difference and the introduction is a bit more comprehensive now. Kaisershatner 17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I love your changes. Many thanks! Palm_Dogg 17:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Battle_of_Badr/archive1&oldid=1138559926"