Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yusuf I of Granada/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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 September 2020 [1].

Yusuf I of Granada edit

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the seventh Sultan of the Nasrid Emirate of Granada, the last Muslim state on the Iberian peninsula (five of the previous Sultans have passed featured article reviews). From the military and geopolitical point of view, during his rule Muslims in the Iberian peninsula suffered various setbacks, including the major defeat at the Battle of Río Salado and the loss of the strategic port of Algeciras. Nevertheless, his rule is seen as the cultural peak of this small emirate: numerous men of learning and culture served at his court and he embarked on construction projects, including new structures in the Alhambra, and a madrasa (educational institution) in the capital. I believe it is ready to be considered for FA. HaEr48 (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Constantine edit

Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 13:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • After gaining more power is *more* power correct here? WOuld it not be better to say that he gained "effective control of the government" or similar?
    Done
  • in Castilian territories -> into Castilian territory
    Done
  • You still want the singular. "into Castilian territory" = "into Castilian lands", where as "into Castilian territories" implies various distinct territories under Castilian control. Here you just want to convey the former.
  • Done
  • but the city fell in March 1344, followed by a ten-year peace treaty with Castile. would recommend ending the sentence after 1344, and then beginning a new one "A ten-year peace treaty with Castile followed".
    Done
  • I don't see that (?).
Done. Huh, I thought I did it. HaEr48 (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alfonso XI broke the treaty and invaded again in 1349 would recommend to put the year first ("In 1349, ...")
    Done
Early life
  • after the victory at the siege of Gibraltar. since there will be another siege of Gibraltar mentioned in the article, I would recommend something like "after repulsing a Castilian siege of Gibraltar", and, to foreshadow events even more, perhaps adding "with help from the Marinid Sultanate of Morocco" or similar.
    Done
  • there was no mention of why perhaps "the sources are silent as to why"
    Done
  • Hmmm, looking at Vidal Castro's article, he writes that it was the Banu Abi'l-Ula who proclaimed him emir, and that "Although the Christian sources affirm, on the other hand, that it was the vizier Ridwan who, from the camp of Guadiaro, went in haste to Granada (more than 200 km distant) to proclaim the new sultan, what appears certain is that the act of proclamation (the oath of allegiance) took place in the Muslim camp in the vicinity of Gibraltar". Is there a reason for this omission?
    I missed reading this version from Vidal Castro. Now added. It resulted in some reorganization of the background content, because now I need to explain the relevant actors and their motives. HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • following the report of the Christian chronicles, -> "who follow the reports of the Christian chronicles"
Geopolitical history
  • Is "Geopolitical history" really the best name? It sounds more like a university course. Why not simply "Reign" or "Foreign policy"?
  • Changed to "Political and military events". Not sure about "reign" - I feel the name overlaps with other sections such as administration.HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine by me, and better at any rate.
Background
  • The emirate was the last Muslim state on the Iberian Peninsula, founded by Muhammad I in the 1230s -> Founded by Muhammad I in the 1230s, the Emirate of Granada....
    Done.
  • I don't see that (?).
  • Ah, now I realized I erased some of my edits in this diff. I suspect opening visual editor in different tabs. Restored now. HaEr48 (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Muslim Marinid Sultanate in Morocco -> the Muslim Marinid Sultanate across the sea in Morocco
    Done.
  • I don't see that (?).
  • relationship as such, and Muhammad I, for instance end the sentence at "as such" and begin a new one
    Done.
  • the powerful commander Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula -> the powerful Granadan commander Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula, or something to make clear that Uthman was actually his own subject
    Done: "Granada's powerful commander Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula" HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, this wording might be confusing: was he "commander of Granada"? If so, what exactly was that? I'd suggest removing the ambiguity and either simply mention that he was a "Granadan commander" without further details, or give the detail: "Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula, the powerful commander of Granada's Volunteers of the Faith,..."
  • Done. Thanks for the thoroughness. HaEr48 (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had to yield Ronda, Marbella, and Algeciras in exchange for a military alliance -> In exchange for the Marinid alliance, he had to...}}
    Done.
  • politically motivated plot by Abu Thabit ibn Uthman and Ibrahim ibn Uthman, prominent members of the Banu Abi al-Ula family -> "politically motivated plot by Uthman's sons Abu Thabit and Ibrahim", and possibly drop the rest, since obviously the sons of Uthman would be prominent members in their own family.
    My worry is readers don't follow from simply the "ibn Uthman" that they were sons of the Uthman mentioned earlier. HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you mean keeping the "ibn Uthman" bit, then no problem. But now I also suggest Abu Thabit ibn Uthman and Ibrahim ibn Uthman, sons of Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula who died in 1330 and the leaders of the Volunteers of the Faith -> "Abu Thabit ibn Uthman and Ibrahim ibn Uthman. They were the sons of Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula, who died in 1330, and his successors as the leaders of the Volunteers of the Faith"
  • leaders of the North African Volunteers of the Faith, the corps of North Africans strike the first "North African" to avoid redundancy
    Done.
Early peace
  • a four year duration -> "a four-year duration"
    Done.
  • into the peninsula -> "into the [Iberian] Peninsula" for clarity
    Probably redundant because the preceding sentence already says "Iberian Peninsula". HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, OK.
  • link Alfonso IV of Aragon and Peter IV and add regnal dates
    Done.
Marinid-Granadan war against Castile
  • to fight against Muslims perhaps link here to Reconquista?
    Done.
  • Granadan-Aragonese, like Marinid-Granadan etc needs endash per MOS:ENDASH
    Done.
  • add regnal years to Afonso IV of Portugal
    Done.
  • five miles from Tarifa as with all distances, I recommend using the convert template and adding km as well
    Done.
  • when Christian reinforcements arrived where these additional to the troop strength mentioned before?
    The source only says "reinforcements". But to me, the obvious reading is that other parts of the army simply reinforced Afonso's formation, so it was not an addition to the strength mentioned before. HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • were routed in the main battle what is the reason for emphasizing the 'main' part? Were there secondary engagements?
    It's to emphasize that Granada and Portugal only formed the smaller part of their respective armies, and whatever happened to the Marinids and the Castilians were the most important part. Thoughts? HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then "in the main battle against the Castilians"
  • per Vidal Castro, add that the Granadans conquered Carcabuey in 1339
    Done.
  • Vidal Castro also emphasizes the enormous human cost of the defeat to Granada, as many "wise men, intellectuals and politicians [who] died in the battle, to which they had participated as volunteers".
    Done.
  • Add that they had joined as volunteers/fought in the battle (e.g., Among the fallen were many intellectuals and officials" or similar), as otherwise it is unclear how intellectuals and officials were lost. The phrasing leaves it open that they died as a consequence of the battle , not during it.
After Salado
  • Would recommend 'After Río Salado' for the section name, since in English, if "Río" is left untranslated, the whole must be treated as the name of the battle.
    Done.
  • bulk of the Marinids "bulk of the Marinid forces/army"
    Done.
Administration
  • replacing his father who died at Salado as above, "who died at Río Salado"
    Done.
Death and legacy
  • A maniac stabbed him given that attributing royal murders to 'madmen' has been a *very* convenient excuse throughout history, I'd refrain from adopting this, or at least phrasing it like this. Say that he was stabbed, that the motive is unknown, and that the murderer was unintelligible, which has led historians to consider him a madman. Whether he truly was, we cannot really know. Vidal Castro even reports a different story, that he was a bastard son of Muhammad IV, and that he had been incited to the act by others.
    Rephrased that the attribution to a madman was done by Arab historians, and included the alternative motive proposed by Vidal Castro. HaEr48 (talk)
  • the flourishing of the study of medicine is there some work or name of a scholar that can be given as an example?
    Ibn al-Khatib himself was a physician (in addition to his many disciplines/occupations), and his theory on epidemics has been of interest to historians of medicine. Fernández-Puertas mentioned three other notable doctors during Yusuf's reign along with their deeds. Should I mention them somewhere? They're not directly related to Yusuf's own life, and at this point, I'm a bit worried about adding too much details. HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reasonable concern, but at least an example is never amiss, as it helps the interested reader. You can add precisely this ("...flourishing of the study of medicine, of which Ibn al-Khatib's theory on epidemics is a good example, continuing to be studied even by modern scholars" or similar), or simply write a brief section with all the names and add it in a footnote if you think they overwhelm the main text.
  • After looking more specifically, Ibn al-Khatib's medical works were produced during the reign of Muhammad V so I'll hold it off for now. Added details on the 3 said scholars npw. HaEr48 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, the section on the medical scholars disrupts the flow a bit, especially with the "describes the reigns of these two sultans" that follows. Recommend moving them to a footnote.
  • Oh, if the footnote is okay then I have no objection whatsoever. Indeed breaking the flow was one of my concern. Moved. HaEr48 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • Vidal Castro's account has some things that are missing. Just a handful from glancing at it:
    • The treatment of his two brothers, Faraj and Ismail
      • Added now, and also his two sisters. HaEr48 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yusuf's appreciation for al-Ghazali and mysticist leanings
      • Done.
    • That all subsequent sultans of the name Yusuf adopted his kunya
      • I saw this but I'm not sure about whether this is special. Looking at the family tree, all rulers of the same given name have the same kunya (e.g. Muhammad = Abu Abdallah, Yusuf = Abu al-Hajjaj, Ismail = Abu al-Walid).
  • Fine by me.

That's it for now. A very well-written article, apart from minor prose issues. The main issue I see and that worries me, just from glancing at Vidal Castro sporadically during my read-through, is that several details are omitted, sometimes rather important ones (e.g. his proclamation, or the alternative version on the origin and motives of his assassin, for example). I strongly recommend re-reading and utilizing him to the fullest as a source, unless there exists a good reason for not doing so (e.g. scholarly consensus against him, but then this is a topic of contention and should be mentioned in the article); otherwise in my view criterion 1b, comprehensiveness, is not satisfied. In view of this, I will wait until all my points are addressed and then do another read-through, checking particularly for comprehensive coverage in Vidal Castro and other sources used in this article. Constantine ✍ 20:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thank you very much for taking a look and for your review. I'll respond to the comprehensiveness issue first - I admit after gathering information from mainly Fernández-Puertas, Harvey, and Arié, I didn't look at Vidal Castro's entry as closely as I should. Since you've found information there that can materially improve the article, I'll go read it again and more closely, add new information as necessary, respond to the other feedback and then ping you again when I'm done. Thank you for bringing this up, and glad to have a reviewer who read Spanish (In one past review I got into trouble for relying too much on non-English sources!). HaEr48 (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. As I said, the article is a fine piece of work as it stands, and I enjoyed reading it. It was therefore surprising to notice this omission, but I know it can happen that a source can be neglected when writing an article amidst juggling a dozen other sources; that's what these reviews are for, to detect and flag such issues. So take your time, and ping me when you're ready. Constantine ✍ 06:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS, re 'In one past review I got into trouble for relying too much on non-English sources!' that should not happen, there is absolutely no such requirement. Per WP:NONENG, English sources should be preferred when available and of equal quality and relevance, which of course will not be the case in a great many cases. Constantine ✍ 06:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Responded to all of your comments above, and I've milked Vidal Castro for more information, as you suggested. In addition to the specific information you've pointed out above, I've added additional background information, edifices attributed to Yusuf, and other events during his reign. I think it is ready for another review, let me know what you think. HaEr48 (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the changes, and it looks good, apart from a couple of minor points. Haven't yet had the chance to do a thorough read-through comparison with the references, but will try to do so ASAP. Constantine ✍ 20:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: responded to your remaining points. HaEr48 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Looks good, apart from one final, minor, remark. I did a quick read-through and a spotcheck on the sources, can't find anything to complain about. So I am happy to support now. Well done! Constantine ✍ 21:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Thank you very much for looking at the article, your very constructive feedback, and your support! HaEr48 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned.

Consider adding alt text. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Nb. It is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

I looked at this for GoCE and assessed it at GAN and it looked pretty good. Let's see how it stacks up for FAC.

I have done a little copy editing on the way, which you will want to check.

Those seem correct, and thank you very much. 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "r." for reign is templated except for Muhammad IV.
    Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "been the leaders of the Volunteers of the Faith". I realise that it is the lead, but a brief explanation of who these were may avoid confusion in many readers.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reluctantly" is PoV and should be attributed (or deleted - you can more easily attribute in the main article).
    Deleted in the lead and attributed inline in the article body. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:FOREIGNITALIC requires a template for all foreign words, not just italics. Eg {{lang|ar-latn|[[Madrasah of Granada|Madrasa Yusufiyya]]}} gives Madrasa Yusufiyya.
    Looking further down at MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, looks like a proper name and names of institutions are not italicized, except when the name itself is being referred to or when provided as a translation for an English name, so I changed it into normal font. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, but you need to use the lang template for other foreign words, eg "umm walad", "laqab" etc.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Comares Palace to Comares Palace.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mother of Ismail" This seems a little stilted to me Optional: → 'Ismail's mother'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dhu al-Hijja" is not in English. Hence needs to be in italics via a lang template.
    Same as above, this is a proper name. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon his accession he took the laqab (honorific or regnal name) al-Mu'ayyad billah ("He who is aided by God"). The founder of the dynasty, Muhammad I, had taken a laqab (al-Ghalib billah, "Victor by the grace of God")" The first laqab is in italics (no template), the second isn't. Is a laqab a proper name or not?
It is a proper name. Removed italics to be consistent. HaEr48 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Master of the Order of Alcántara". Perhaps a note of what the Order of Alcántara was - in addition to the Wikilink? Likewise the Order of Santiago?
    I tried and can't come up with a clean way to explain inline without distracting the prose too much, so I added a footnote. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works fine.
  • "were defeated in Jerez". "in" Jerez, or at Jerez?
    changed to "at Jerez", but to be honest I don't know the principle at use here. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"in" means actually within the city; "at" means somewhere near but not necessarily within the city. I don't know which but suspect the latter.
Yes, I read the source again and confirmed it is the latter. 17:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "feigning a plan to attack Málaga" →'feigning an attack against Málaga'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the following weeks after the fall of Alcalá's". 1) Delete "following"; 2) why the "'s"?
    1) Done. 2) Probably remnants of a previous rewording. Deleted the "'s". HaEr48 (talk)
  • "he reluctantly sent 300 jinete cavalry to help the Castilian king". The PoV use of "reluctantly" needs in line attribution to the RS claiming it.
    Added an inline attribution. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Tower of the Captive on the ramparts." link "ramparts".
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is hammam an English word?
    Yes according to Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and dictionary.com
That's my new thing for today then.

Nice additions and improvements since I last looked at it. Just the few picky points above from me for you to consider. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: As always, thank you for looking and for your review and copyedit. I have responded above. HaEr48 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. A couple of actionable responses above, and a further thought below.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quality addition to your series. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for your support, and sorry my last round of responses took so long. I was trying to fill the gap pointed out by Constantine above before continuing with the prose changes. HaEr48 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. I suspected that was the case; no worries - Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I'll have a look soon. At first glance, it appears Muhammad I and V are duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too bad this image is so small[2], I couldn't find a larger version, though...
Indeed, me neither. HaEr48 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another cool image[3][4] (the two versions could be spliced together so there would be no watermarks), but since no artist or source is listed, it's difficult to demonstrate if it's in the public domain... FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need more information on authorship or date. HaEr48 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his mother, Bahar, an umm walad (freed concubine)" Do we know anything about her background, ethnicity?
Not in my current sources. I sent this RX request which I hope will help [5], but no promises. I will reply again when I have access to that source. HaEr48 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added that she was from the Christian lands, which is as specific as the source says. Also, found other tidbits about the mother and other women in his life, I added them here, hopefully it helps adding more color to the biography. HaEr48 (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More names and terms could maybe be linke din captions?
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refer to "Castilian chronicles" and "Christian chronicles", are these the same?
    Yes, changed all to Castilian to avoid confusion. HaEr48 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strait to Ceuta the same night. [31]" Unnecessary space before citation.
    Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yusuf presided over court activities from a wooden folding armchair that is currently preserved in the Museum of the Alhambra and bears the Nasrid coat of arms across its back" Sounds like something that would be fun to show, but I can't find any photos form that museum...
    If you're curious, this appears to be a duplicate/modeled after the one in the museum, but the picture is copyrighted (not to mention rather ugly). HaEr48 (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, the bags are a, err, nice touch... FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The solemn prayer was then interrupted Yusuf was carried to his royal apartment" Missing a comma or "and" after interrupted?
    It seems someone just fixed it. HaEr48 (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Yusuf's nephew" Maybed add "supposed" nephew?
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: thank you for reading and the review. I have responded to all your points above. Let me know if you have other feedback. 02:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Just a few things.
  • "Abu Nu'aym Ridwan, who was present at Muhammad IV's assassination, rode quickly to the capital," This would be Granada, I assume?
  • "They signed a new treaty at Fez, in Morocco," Was this within the Marinid Sultanate?
  • " Among the fallen were many of Granadan intellectuals and officials.[2]" Possibly "Granadan" should be "Granada's".
  • Ceuta is not linked. Neither is Murcia. Or Seville. Or Guadix.
  • "Still in the Alhambra, he built the small prayer hall (oratorio) of the Partal Palace, and what is now the Gate of the Seven Floors.[2]" Maybe "Also" instead of "Still". Or cut the introductory phrase and add "in the Alhambra" after "Palace".
  • "he was freed a year later but then refused Yusuf's offer to reappoint him, as vizier.[63]" I might cut the comma
Interesting read.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: thank you for taking a look and for your review :) I have responded above, I hope I addressed them properly. Let me know if you have more feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Looks like we need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, we still need a formal source review. If I understand correctly Cplakidas might have done references checking and comparison, but nobody has done a full check on formatting, quality of sources, etc. HaEr48 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The second of the three Diccionario Biográfico electrónico refs has different formatting from the other two
    Updated. HaEr48 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latham: are you citing the print or the online version? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The print version. The URL is added to help people who don't have access to the print version. Any problem, Nikkimaria? HaEr48 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the content of the version linked the same as the content of the version cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: I think so, because the web page says that it is simply the online version of the print work (the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition). I only have access to the opening snippet of the online version, and it is word-for-word identical to the print version. I would be really surprised if they differ except in probably some trivial revisions, but if you feel this is doubtful I can delete the URL. HaEr48 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I bring this up is because the citation is to the "New Edition", while the online version is the "Second Edition" - recently at another FAC an editor asserted that these two are entirely different works. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I think the assertion there is that Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE (EI3) is different from EI2 = "The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition" = The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition", which is true. But the Second Edition and the New Edition are the same (=EI2). I guess they considered EI2 "New" when it first came out but just "Second Edition" now that EI3 exists. This was confusing to me too, so don't blame me! HaEr48 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2020 (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/Yusuf_I_of_Granada/archive1&oldid=978453646"