Siege of Mecca (692) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	Siege of Mecca (692) is part of the Second Fitna series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 10, 2019 Good article nominee Listed February 26, 2020 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Middle East / Early Muslim This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600) Saudi Arabia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Muslim history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Muslim history task force.

I would have done a GA review myself, but I’d rather we avoid any notion of collusion considering we’ve teamed up on improving these Second Fitna articles. I’m listing some points below that should be addressed:

Thanks for ce and comments Al Ameer.

• Since we mention Ibn Numayr seeking Ibn al-Zubayr’s relocation to Syria, it should be introduced at that point or prior in the Background section that Syria was the headquarters of the Umayyad Caliphate.

Done.

• The Hejaz should be introduced earlier or at least clarified as the home of Mecca and Medina since most readers wouldn’t know.

Done. Do you have any say about this file? If it is accurate, it can be used in the article.

• ”lay siege if Ibn al-Zubayr was to refuse peace”. What is meant by “peace”? Surrender? Anything less than that would seem odd.

Done.

• Some more background/prelude details should be added. Tariq ibn Amr’s expedition to Medina should be elaborated on, i.e. when it happened, how it happened (did Ibn al-Zubayr’s governor put up a fight or flee?), the name of his defeated governor, the stationing of Tariq’s troops in Wadi al-Qura, how many troops do the sources say Tariq ibn Amr brought to Mecca? All of this could be squeezed into two sentences.

Tariq's details are highly confused. Tabari says he arrived in Medina in 690/691. Dixon says Zubayrid governor of Basra al-Quba sent 2000 men against Tariq. Quba was not the governor of Basra in 691, he had held the office before Mus'ab, i.e. before 686.

They certainly appear to be. I would omit Quba. I’ll take a stab at it later today. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted that Najda or his representative was in control of Ta’if when al-Hajjaj entered it. It’s a good indicator of the scale of Ibn al-Zubayr’s isolation by this point, that even nearby Ta’if was outside of his control.

@Al Ameer son: I only know that Najda had seized Taif in 689. Are you sure he was still in control 692?

I believe so but will look into it later today. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind about this; just checked Dixon and found nothing to indicate the Kharijites were in control when al-Hajjaj entered. He doesn’t mention if Najda’s deputy over the city was ousted at some point prior to al-Hajjaj’s arrival. —Al Ameer (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What’s the name of the “nearby mountain”? Abu Qubays?

Yes, I intentionally omitted the name. It doesn't add anything to the article.

On the contrary, this is the type of precision a battle article should contain, especially if the information is readily available. —Al Ameer (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• Brief description of Abd Allah ibn Umar should be added.

Done.

• ”Hajjaj resumed the bombardment himself”. Hajjaj personally operated the catapult?

Yes, he loaded and fired it.

• Who refers to it as the “Year of Unity”? The traditional Muslim sources?

Dixon and EI2 cite two Arab sources, but seems it was called as such by the people. Both (Dixon & EI2) write "was called the year of unity", instead of saying "XYZ has called it the year of unity".

• ”Abd al-Malik is reported to have regretted” Reported by whom? Or according to whom?

Baladhuri, but I avoid mentioning primary sources every now and then, because almost everything comes from these 3,4 sources anyway.

Understood, but in this case we should attribute to the source the emotional expression of the caliph. —Al Ameer (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• Note A should just be a sentence in the “Siege” section, not a note.

Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Al Ameer (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Mecca (692)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this one. Give me a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gog the Mild. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This could do with a copy edit. Are you ok for me to do this? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure, you don't need to ask ;) Article is Wikipedia's, not mine :D AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Mecca-1850.jpg needs a US PD tag. It is PD, the home page just needs to explicitly state this.

Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In the second image, can we Wikilink hatīm to Hajr Ismail and give it a capital H.

Great, I didn't know article on hatim existed Now linked, but didn't capitalize since sources also don't. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation: That doesn't matter. Wikipedia policy is to capitalise all proper nouns, which this is, just like Ka'aba or Black Stone.

Alright, will capitalize then done. I normally try to follow source convention, except in diacritical marks ;). AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please check the bold copy edits I have made. If you don't like any, or feel that I have got the facts wrong, please flag that up here. Thanks.

No, they are helpful. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "the sacred black stone burst apart" Would it be accurate, and/or more useful, to say something like "the sacred black stone was smashed into pieces after being struck by a catapult missile"?

It just burst into four pieces; "smashed into pieces" gives an impression of breaking into many fragments, and also that breaking was result of an impact. It was because of fire, AFAIK. Will look further into this over the weekend. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it broke into four pieces, it would be better to say that and not use either "burst" or "smashed". I have a not very reliable source which strongly suggests that it was struck by a stone from a catapult during this siege, but let's see what your more reliable one says.

EI2 article on Kaaba (Vol. 4, p.319) says fire split it into three pieces. Changed it accordingly. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Yazid died in November that year and the arrival of this news compelled Husayn ibn Numayr, the commander of the besieging army, to withdraw." It is not clear why Yazid's death should have this effect.

Added. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ISBNs: you need to standardise on one form of hyphening them.

Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My reading of page 197 of Wellhausen does not support "As a result, Ibn al-Zubayr lost control of most of his territory". Could you explain why you think that it does?

Wellhausen says "After this not very honourable victory Abdulmalik marched into Kufa, received the homage of the tribes and appointed his officials over the newly subdued provinces." Iraq and its eastern dependencies were under Mus'ab, Ibn al-Zubayr's brother. Abd al-Malik conquered Iraq and appointed governors over its regions. I think it is fairly accurate to rephrase it as "Ibn al-Zubayr lost these territories". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum. I am not fully convinced, but I can see (now) your line of thinking, so OK.

• I note that Hitti and Murgotten is a translation. When was the original Arabic text published and why should it be considered a reliable source?

Yes, it is translation of Baladhuri's (d. 892) Futuh al-Buldan, perhaps the second most reliable and second most cited primary source author after Tabari. I think it is fine to use it occasionally, as we do with Tabari. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. Perhaps I should have realised that, but I didn't :-( .

That's it for my first read through. A nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your 100th review ;) AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It has been fun, as well as hard work getting here. Difficult to believe that they have been done in less than 18 months.

100 in 18 months? Wow! That is 5-6 reviews a month. Great.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "He was killed along with his few remaining supporters in October 692" Should that be '... in September, October or November 692'? Or, possibly 'towards the end of 692'? Similarly, shouldn't the infobox be 'March–September/October/November 692'?

I just realized while re-reading it that Wellhausen had had made a calculation error. 18 September is simply incorrect. Since siege started on 1 Dhul Qada (25 March) and then he says it lasted 6 [hijri] months and 17 days ending on 17 Jamada I, it just can't be 18 September. 18 September would be 1st of Jamada I, and 17 of Jamada I would be 4 October. Dixon has just copied the error from Wellhausen. I think we should just remove September and make it October/November in infobox and "October or November 692" in the body. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed September. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. A good piece of work on an important topic. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! indeed. Good catch. Does this mean that the Wikipedia article will be more accurate that the "reliable" sources? Neat.

Yeah --AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm passing this as GA and leaving you to tidy up the date issue. Good luck with sourcing that.

Thank you Gog the Mild for the review, ce and helpful suggestions. --AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Good job. I made a minor case fix edit (again). Sources don't cap "siege" in "siege of Mecca". See stats. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question on why "hatīm" gets capitalized: I see the unsigned assertion above that it's a proper name, but also no argument against the observation there that sources don't cap it. What's that about? As I read MOS:CAPS we'd use lowercase if sources often do. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]