Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Khalid ibn al-Walid/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 22 March 2022 [1].

Khalid ibn al-Walid edit

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Khalid ibn al-Walid, a military leader who led the conquests which brought central Arabia and Byzantine Syria under Muslim rule. Though he dealt the early Muslims under the prophet Muhammad their first battlefield defeat, he embraced Islam soon after and devoted his military talents to the budding Muslim state. His tactics and strategy, including his famous 'desert march', have become enshrined in legend. The Muslim tradition levels serious charges of moral impropriety against Khalid, while crediting him more than any other commander for the success of the 7th-century conquests. Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AhmadLX edit

Great work. Some comments follow:

  • On Uhud battle, I think a map like this would be more informative than the mountain picture.
  • Thanks for pointing this one out, I added it, while keeping the photo of the mountain itself. Al Ameer (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Ansar ... attempted to elect one of their own as caliph..." This is incorrect. They wanted to elect their city chief, like pre-Islamic times. The idea that Muslims should remain united under a (sort of) central government was Abu Bakr/Umar's invention. See, for example, Watt, Lewis.
  • Could you point me to the two specific sources and page numbers? Shoufani's work is devoted to the Ridda and is comprehensive on the primary sources and the modern scholars, including Watt; however, he is generally less authoritative than Watt or Lewis on Islamic history, including the Saqifah and perhaps the Ridda as well. Shoufani states explicitly that the Ansar, or part of them, initially attempted to elect their own as "caliph", "successor to Muhammad" and objected to a Muhajir (Meccan) from having this role. Al Ameer (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find Watt at the moment (was long time ago). Lewis 2000 pp.48-49, and Donner 2010 pp. 97-98 make the same point. Other than these, if we take at face value the reports of the Saqifa episode (Shoufani seems to do the same), it becomes clear from the dialogue that the Ansar had limited foresight; after the arrival of the Muhajirun, the Ansar are said to have proposed two chiefs (1 for themselves, 1 for Muhajirun). Having two heads of state (or Khalifa anachronously) is hard to explain for that period. Anyway, this is OR; we have at-least 2 very good sources saying that anyway. Will search for Watt as well. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wellhausen 1927 pp. 33ff and Sharon 1980 p. 126. Although less explicit than the two above, they make it clear nevertheless that the people were unclear at the time what was to be done in the absence of the prophet. That Shoufani, and many others, assert that the Ansar wanted a "caliph" of their own, is just sloppiness, just like many people write about the arbitration at Siffin that its goal was to elect a caliph. Of those who go into the weeds of the Saqifa event and still hold that the Ansar wanted a general Muslim leader (kind of successor of the prophet in political sphere) to be from them, Shaban is notable. One could also check Madelung, but am not sure what exactly he says. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Could not access Sharon. Madelung on p. 31 says that “Modern historians generally understand the initiative of the Ansar” to have been an attempt to seize the succession of Muhammad, echoing reports cited by the Islamic tradition where Umar accuses the Ansar of such. Madelung himself questions this, as caliphal succession had not yet developed by this point and the unlikelihood that the Ansar would meet alone to achieve such a goal. He assesses they sought to elect their own leader to rule over their native city. For this article, as this topic does not need to be so detailed, I simplified to “elect their own leader” and cited Madelung. Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When referring to "modern historians" in Succession, Madelung usually means Caetani ;) Anyways, checked the page and his point, as you said, is same as of those listed above. I wasn't advocating for detail in this article; I had issue with the use of "calip" and the meaning it conveys. All fine now.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Abu Bakr dispatched the bulk of the Muslim army under Usama ibn Zayd against Byzantine Syria...and defeated a group of the Ghatafan tribe at Dhu al-Qassa in the Hejaz". This is irrelevant. One can make it just one sentence that Medina itself was threatened and the threat was then neutralized. One should then move to Khalid.
  • Revised. The point (which perhaps was not made properly) of mentioning the deployment to Syria was contextual: Abu Bakr was consequently left with a relatively small force to deal with the opposing nomad tribes. But I agree it is not necessarily relevant to this article so it has been trimmed from the prose. Al Ameer (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, the background of Ridda should be expanded a bit. First it should be clarified a bit further what sort of challenge it was. Then Abu Bakr's insistence on fighting them. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. There are multiple, contrasting views of the 'Ridda' by modern scholars. I will attempt to address this when I find some time this week. Al Ameer (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me know if my revisions address your concern on these two points (Usama's expedition and nature of the 'Ridda'). Al Ameer (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems nice. Sorry for late. Some more comments follow. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tribes in Bahrayn may have resisted the Muslims until the middle of that year." Two years (233 and 234) are mentioned in the preceding sentence. To which does "the middle of that year" refer?
  • " though the historian Khalid Yahya Blankinship, argues "Khālid at least ..." I think you have an extra comma after Blankinship.
  • "Khalid was instructed by Abu Bakr or requested by al-Walid ibn Uqba to reinforce the Muslim commander Iyad ibn Ghanm's faltering siege of the oasis town." In what capacity was al-Walid ibn Uqba requesting reinforcements?
  • Bahra' → Bahra
  • "It is unclear whether Khalid was appointed supreme commander of the Muslim armies in Syria ... Umar may have confirmed Khalid as supreme commander." That it is "unclear" is not supported by the rest of the paragraph. 5 accounts say Abu Bakr "appointed" him, and 1 says that commanders on the field "did" through consensus. Then it is mentioned that Athamina doubts such a consensus among the commanders. None of this suggests that there is doubt regarding his "appointment", whether by Abu Bakr, Umar, or the local commanders.
  • "The sizes of the forces cited by the medieval traditions are disputed by modern historians;..." But you don't give any numbers cited by them at all.
  • "Khalid consequently withdrew, taking up position north of the Yarmouk River,[141] close to where the Ruqqad meets the Yarmouk." Was his new position closer to the Byzantine camp or farther away? If the former, you can't use "withdrew". In that case you one should use "moved" or "relocated his camp" or something similar.
  • Looking into this, will update you most likely tomorrow on it. Al Ameer (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Byzantines were unsuccessful in encouraging desertions on the Muslim side." Whom were they encouraging to desert? Couldn't have been the Arabs of the Peninsula I think.
  • Removed altogether actually; does not seem important enough for inclusion in this article. Al Ameer (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At one place you call de Goeje and Caetani "late 19th-century/early 20th-century historians" perhaps to distinguish them from the more recent ones. But later you call de Goeje and Muir "modern historians". The former, i.e. "late 19th-century/early 20th-century historians", is very awkward IMO.
  • In the discussion of the Shi'ite hostility towards Khalid you should mention that he is held by them to have mistreated Ali. AFAIK, this is the main reason of their hostility.
  • Agree but I could not find this in any RS. Any pointers on the mistreatment ref? Al Ameer (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will keep a look out for a better explanation of the Shia disdain for Khalid; has to be more to it than Malik ibn Nuwayra. Probably related to Khalid's strong support for Abu Bakr's succession and apparent opposition to Ali in that regard, which I added recently to the article. Shoufani does not mention explicitly that this was a source of the Shias' negative views toward him though. Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's like this: The Book of Sulaym b. Qays, an 8th/9th-century composite work believed by many to be written by Ali's companion Sulaym and documenting Ali's utterances, has it that Khalid dragged Ali to force his submission to Abu Bakr. Now, for Shi'is it is much bigger a crime than executing Malik ibn Nuwayra. I hoped to find it cited in some better source, but no luck so far. If I come across something in the future, I will add it.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying. Yes, please do. I was under the impression that Sulaym never really existed, but his book is still considered authoritative in Shia religious literature so in either case it would be pertinent to add this once you have the RS. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the nomadic tribe of Banu Khalid, which dwelt in the vicinity of Homs during the Mamluk (1260–1516) and Ottoman (1516–1917) eras, was unrelated to Khalid." Why mention them if unrelated? However, if they made a claim of decent from him, it should be mentioned before the refutation. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed for now; could not find that they claimed descent or that others claimed they were. Al Ameer (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your thorough review, took care of those remaining items in the source review. Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest converting the family tree to a chart instead of an image
  • Suggest adding alt text to all images
  • All of the maps are challenging to interpret at current sizes, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • All maps scaled up. Let me know if MOS:COLOUR has been addressed by revised captions.
  • File:Hayton_BNF886_9v.jpg needs a US tag
  • As Syria does not have freedom of panorama, File:Khaled_Ebn_El-Walid_Mosque3.jpg will need a tag for the original work. Ditto File:ضريح_خالد_بن_الوليد.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka edit

  • The Makhzum under Abu Jahl commanded the war against the Islamic prophet, who had emigrated from Mecca to Medina in 622, until they were routed at the Battle of Badr in 624. Consider rewording. Perhaps: "After the Islamic prophet emigrated from Mecca to Medina in 622, the Makhzum under Abu Jahl commanded the war against him until they were routed at the Battle of Badr in 624."
  • ...the Qurayshites Zayd ibn al-Khattab and Abu Hudhayfa ibn Utba... Is this correct grammatically?
  • Not sure, but removed "Qurayshites". Al Ameer (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the caliph appointed Khalid supreme commander I assume Abu Bekr is the caliph. Could you name him?
  • The Byzantine infantry, which may have mutinied under Vahan, was afterward routed. Who thinks/suggests/proposes this and why?
    • I referred to the possibility of mutiny under Vahan. I think we need some explanation or the text could be deleted.
  • Clarified. It was according (solely) to Theophanes. Jandora views this report as plausible and offers the infantry's view of the cavalry commander's failure as the possible cause for their mutiny under the distinguished veteran Vahan, who was probably popular among the troops. Al Ameer (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a later order redeployed the bulk of Khalid's former troops to Iraq I understand Khalid's invasion of Iraq may have been a later inventions, so it is not sure that his troops were redeployed to Iraq.
  • I assume the term "personality cult" is anachronistic in the article's context.
  • How so? If it is, I will revise. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to my experiences, the term is used in 20th-century context. However, I am not a native speaker, so I may be wrong.
  • In Kennedy's assessment, Khalid was "a brilliant, ruthless military commander, but one with whom the more pious Muslims could never feel entirely comfortable". Why?
  • The leeriness toward Khalid by the more pious Muslims, as the tradition would have us believe, was due to several events: his decisive role in the defeat of Muhammad at Uhud, his attack on the Jadhima tribe for personal reasons, his execution of the chieftain Malik ibn Nuwayra and immediate marriage of his widow, his unilateral actions on campaigns, alleged fiscal misconduct and consumption of wine in Syria, and many of the early Muslims crediting of him personally for his battlefield victories (which the pious would have attributed to God exclusively). These events are mentioned throughout the article, as well as the consequent flack he received for them, so I do not think restating them here would make sense. Al Ameer (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Perhaps you could mention this shortly. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading it again, there is further elaboration in that passage. I have rearranged it a bit now so that this elaboration comes immediately after the sentence ending in "pious Muslims could never feel entirely comfortable". Al Ameer (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khalid had a son called Sulayman, hence his kunya ('paedonymic') Abu Sulayman ('father of Sulayman'). Do we have any other information about Sulayman? For instance, his mother is unknow, or he died in infancy, or he was Khalid's eldest son.
  • I am a bit leery about him even having a son of that name. I only found this to be said explicitly by a primary source (Tabari), have not found anything about this supposed son in any modern sources; others besides Tabari also mention Khalid's kunya of 'Abu Sulayman', but do not say that he in fact had a son by that name. Usually, that would be the case: unless a man had no sons and was given an honorary kunya (so-to-speak), the kunya usually denoted the person's eldest son. Khalid did have sons so it would be natural to presume he did in fact also have an older son named Sulayman (who maybe died young or played no eventful role), but this remains a presumption on my part. I will say further, besides his military career, ancestry and some aspects of his early life, I have found that biographical details about Khalid, including about his sons, wives and descendants, are relatively scant. Had trouble finding anything about his last three years too (639–642), even his age at death (or at any other interval of his life). Al Ameer (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could mention that his kunya indicates that his eldest son was called Sulayman, but we have no information of his son. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioned that he was the eldest son, but not the point about no other info about his son as this would still be a presumption on my part—there could be credible info about him out there and I just have not found it. Al Ameer (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this excellent article. Borsoka (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • He played the leading military role in ... the early Muslim conquests of Sasanian Iraq in 633–634...; and Khalid subsequently moved against the largely Christian Arab tribes and the Sasanian Persian garrisons of the Euphrates valley in Iraq. The quotes from the lead contradicts the main text which implies that he had no role in the conquest of Iraq.
  • The body does not imply he had no role, so far the only major historian to hold that view is Patricia Crone. Most others do credit him for launching the campaigns in Iraq, but differ on the extent or purpose of the campaigns. I could revise to "early campaigns in Sasanian Iraq" as opposed to the conquest of the region? Al Ameer (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I revised per my proposal. Let me know if this language is more suitable. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was afterward demoted from the high command by Umar for a range of causes cited by traditional Islamic and modern sources. Could you be more specific? Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are so many different reasons offered by the sources, old and modern, that it would be excessive to specify them here (alleged moral and fiscal misconduct, personal hostility by Umar, excessive fame, the need for an administrator rather than a military man at the helm, a compromise of sorts with the powerful native Arab tribes in Syria, etc.). I agree it is vague as it stands, but as a solution I would rather just remove "for a range of causes cited by traditional Islamic and modern sources" altogether, and just make it a full stop after "by Umar". Al Ameer (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my concerns were addressed and the remaining issues are not highly important so I support this article. As to my last remark, I think a full stop after "by Umar" would be the best solution. Borsoka (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Borsoka, Al Ameer (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review - Pass edit

Source Quality

  • How is Umari 1991 an RS? What are the credentials of the author? The Introduction starts with "Praise be to God and blessings upon the messenger". The publisher is an Islamic organization. The book is written from a Muslim point of view and can be used to describe the Muslim POV but not for statements of fact or for analysis.
  • The author is an Arabic-language historian of nascent Islam (and an observant Muslim). His education credentials include history degrees from Baghdad and a PhD from a leading Cairo university. His main occupation for decades afterward was as a professor and academic of Islamic history in Baghdad and Medina. In the academic circles of the Arab world at least he appears well-known. In general, he presents a sober, straightforward and carefully cited work in Madinan Society. While his apparent lack of recognition in Western academia could be considered a weakness, it contributes some healthy diversity to the article—an established Muslim historian from the Muslim world as a source about a prominent Muslim historical figure. In any case, I have limited using him to fill in a few gaps of Khalid's biography during Muhammad's lifetime and half of these instances are either an opinion attributed to him directly or to the early Islamic scholars he cites. Al Ameer (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept that based on your assessment of the work. From my experience, authors who spell such formulas in their books/articles usually lack neutrality and in the worst case don't hesitate from stating outright falsehoods, and hence fail our RS criteria. If you find his treatment of the material sober, then I think we're good. I removed a couple citations from this sources though, as the material was supported by others/was not relevant.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

  • Kister 2002, p. 7, 13–17. : pp.
  • Donner 1981, p. 121, 126. : pp.
  • Kennedy 2007, pp. 92, note 52. : p.
  • Kennedy, Hugh (2007) should come after Kennedy, Hugh (2004) in biblio (the classic Kennedy issue not found though;))
  • Kister, M. J. (2002): doi/jstor unknown/non-existent?
  • Lynch, Ryan J. (2013): as above
  • Lecker, Michael; Lecker, M. : standardize
  • Watt, W. Montgomery; Watt, W. M. : ditto
  • Kaegi, Walter E.; Kaegi, W. E. : this one too
  • Mulder, Stephennie (2014): this one should certainly be Brill ;)
  • Sirriya, Elizabeth (April 1979) : drop April
  • Athamina, Khalil (July 1994) : drop July
  • Shorter EI: ISBN/OCLC unknown?
  • For Arabica you give publisher, but not for other journals. I think the easiest thing is to drop the publisher of Arabica.
  • Thanks, all fixed (no doi for Kister or Lynch journal articles). Al Ameer (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better is to give this link for Kister 2002; it has free pdf.
  • The link of Tab. vol 12 goes to vol 15.
  • The link of Tab. vol 13 not working as id parameter missing.
  • Gil, Moshe (1997) [1992] is a translation. You haven't named the translator.
  • Kaegi, Walter E. (1992). The link is of 1995 edition, which is not a reprint of the 1992 edition, so page numbers may be different.
  • Pourshariati, Parvaneh (2008). Consider changing link id to o9WLDwAAQBAJ. Has preview.

Spot checks
Checked around one quarter of the citations from the sources available to me. Given below only the problematic instances.

  • "According to Sayf ibn Umar, ...al-Ash'ath ibn Qays.[169]" : correct page number is 106
  • "...and streets are named after him all over the Arab world".[181]" : correct page number is 76
  • "Abd al-Rahman's son Khalid was the overall commander of the Arab forces in the campaigns against the Byzantines in 668/69.[18]" The source only says that he was "a commander in 48/668-9". No mention of the campaign, and not the "overall commander".
  • The above 3 items have been fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Khalid claimed such an order was his prerogative...rejoined Khalid after internal deliberations.[46]" : correct page numbers 44-45
  • "After his victories against the Bedouin of Najd...should he be victorious.[57]" : correct page number is 33. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above 2 have been corrected. Al Ameer (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing these Al Ameer. I would want to give formatting another go before I pass the source review. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • "he is commemorated throughout the Arab world until the present day": do we need "until the present day"? I think "is" does that work, or perhaps "is still".
  • "After the Islamic prophet emigrated from Mecca to Medina in 622": I think it would be more natural to make it "Muhammad".

Looking very good so far. Out of time for this morning; I've read down to "Commander in the Ridda wars"; more tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike Christie, looking forward to the rest of the review. Al Ameer (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "His forces consisted of the Muhajirun and the Ansar." Earlier in the section these two groups are mentioned in the discussion of Abu Bakr's claim to be caliph. From that description it seems the terms describe demographic groups, not just the warrior elements of these groups, though I understand there would be considerable overlap given that only adult men's voices would be relevant in the attempt to elect a caliph. To say his forces consisted of the Muhajirun and the Ansar makes it sound to me as if he took the entire tribe with him, women, children, and all. I would have expected wording such as "His forces were drawn from the Muhajirun and the Ansar". Or am I misunderstanding how these terms are used by the sources?
  • "Malik had also been cooperating with Sajah, his kinswoman from the Yarbu": I had to hunt back through the article for Sajah's name to understand that since Sajah claimed to be a prophet this would have meant Malik was apostate as far as the Muslims were concerned. I think a few words to make this point would be helpful.
  • Let me know if the revised wording addresses this. Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whose inhabitants were expelled or enslaved and resettled with tribesmen from clans of the Tamim": I think the intended meaning is that the two villages were resettled, not that the inhabitants of the villages were resettled.
  • "The bulk of the Muhajirun may have withdrawn to Medina before Khalid embarked on his campaign and he consequently reorganized his army": if the withdrawal is not certain, "consequently" should be conditional too. If it's certain he reorganized but not certain why, perhaps "Khalid reorganized his army, possibly because the bulk of the Muhajirun may have withdrawn to Medina". But from the following sentences it appears that perhaps it's only the timing of the withdrawal that's uncertain?
  • Will work on replacing the map altogether. Al Ameer (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Athamina notes hints in the traditional sources that Khalid initiated the campaign unilaterally, inferring that": suggest either "and infers that" to match the form of "notes", or "implying that".
  • "particularly amid the economic crisis in Arabia in the aftermath of the Ridda campaigns": this crisis has not been mentioned, so something like "particularly amid an economic crisis in Arabia which had arisen in the aftermath of the Ridda campaigns", or else a footnote explaining it.
  • Also, given that the map doesn't contain some of the key placenames mentioned in the possible itineraries (e.g. Jabal al-Bishri) I think it would be worth specifying in the text which coloured line represents which itinerary, either in the body of the article or in the caption.
  • I revised the map from "Bishri Mts" to "Jabal Bishri". Al Ameer (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the traditional accounts agree on the following events", and then you give a list introduced by a colon. There are only two events, so I think it would read more naturally to make this "Excluding the above-mentioned operations in Dumat al-Jandal and the upper Euphrates valley, the traditional accounts agree on only two events of Khalid's route to Syria after the departure from al-Hira: the desert march between Quraqir and Suwa, and a subsequent raid against the Bahra tribe at or near Suwa and operations which resulted in the submission of Palmyra; otherwise, they diverge in tracing Khalid's itinerary."
  • "though there are no toponyms associated with Quraqir or Suwa": I think " though there are no placenames that can be interpreted as Quraqir or Suwa" might be clearer.
  • "In the Dumat al-Jandal–Damascus route, such toponyms exist, namely the sites of Qulban Qurajir—associated with "Quraqir", along the eastern edge of Wadi Sirhan—and Sab' Biyar, which is identified with Suwa 150 kilometers (93 mi) east of Damascus." This is a very picky stylistic point, but you have a parallel structure, listing two sites, with subordinate comments about how they are identified, but non-parallel ways of presenting the subordinate points -- parenthetical dashes for the first, and a subordinate clause for the second. I think parenthetical commas instead of dashes would be better.
  • Why do you write "ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ" when quoting Athamina? I assume it's just because it's a direct quote that you don't want to change. Given that you've already introduced Amr, with slightly different orthography, I'd suggest making the quote "it is inconceivable that a man like [Amr ibn al-As] would agree".
  • Your assumption was correct, revised. Al Ameer (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "assaulted a group of Ghassanids": suggest "attacked" rather than "assaulted". A force can assault a fortified position, but assaulting people, or collective nouns for people, has connotations of individual bodily attacks, rather than military operations.
  • "making it the first major city to fall to the Muslims": should this be "making it the first major city in Syria to fall to the Muslims"?
  • "the personal feud between Khalid and Umar": we haven't really said there was a personal feud before this; the only hint is that earlier in the article we say that Umar pushed for Khalid to be punished for his treatment of Malik and marriage to Malik's widow, but that's mentioned just above in this paragraph.
  • I could not find enough material in reliable secondary sources about a preexisting feud between Khalid and Umar (just vague hints), but tweaked the wording, which hopefully takes care of this point. Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the enormity of his contributions to Islam": "enormity" means something very wrong -- suggest "despite his tremendous contributions".
  • "Umar expressed remorse over dismissing Khalid and the women of Medina mourned his death en masse": suggest using historic present for this, as you do elsewhere: "Umar expresses remorse over dismissing Khalid and the women of Medina mourn his death en masse".
  • Not a source review, but you might consider adding page ranges to the citations to book chapters: Lammens and Zetterstéen in the bibliography section, and both the chapters cited in "Further reading".
  • Done for Lammens and Zettersteen. Unfortunately I do not have access to the online encyclopedia articles in the Further reading section and I did not add these to the article. Al Ameer (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is very impressive work; just a few points to deal with above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great prose suggestions, there are still two points (Malik/Sajah and the Umar/Khalid tension) which I am working on. Al Ameer (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the other points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I made revisions regarding the last two points. Let me know if they are satisfactory. Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Supporting below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid/archive1&oldid=1078721561"