Talk:Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 18:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status

- Review Criteria

Further information:
WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the

list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

the layout style guideline

;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are

relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Check prose for minor spelling/typos/grammar mistakes.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The first paragraph of the Analysis section should belong to the Aftermath section, as it is simply stating the losses involved.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Going a little more into the revolt in Cyrenaica would be pertinent and/or helpful, or at least hyperlinking to a separate article for that revolt (if there is a good-quality one). That event really should be covered in a little more detail.	Pass
(b) (focused)	No needless details here.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
audio
:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Very good job with the images, captions, and maps.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	A very well-written article, I'm so glad to have reviewed this. Not only is the article readable and the topic matter interesting, but the article is quite comprehensive and takes pains to stay neutral. Again, thanks for the high-quality article, and I also must praise the fact that the nominator was making edits to continually improve the article and fixing mistakes that I didn't catch.

Discussion

1: I found several mistakes in the prose which were minor and I corrected them. However, please review the article carefully and correct any typos I might have missed. Gug01 (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for that. I can't find any major problems, but have tweaked things here and there.
  - Good job on this! Gug01 (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2: See the comment in the table about the Analysis and Aftermath sections. Gug01 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered this, but it is more properly part of the analysis of the campaign, rather than "what happened after", or the political impact it had. Perhaps it might simply suffice to reverse the order of the two sections?
  - Yes, I think it should suffice. Gug01 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done.
3: Add more information about the revolt in Cyrenaica. Gug01 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- On the rebellion in 915, there are not many details available in the primary sources. What little there is ha snow been included. I did add some info on the revolt of Tripolis in 912.
  - I got it. Gug01 (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cplakidas (talk · contribs) Please incorporate the feedback into the article. Gug01 (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Gug01, thanks for taking the time. I will need a few more days, since I don't have access to Halm's book right now. Thanks, Constantine ✍ 08:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. I totally understand. I'll put the GA nomination on hold for 2 weeks, and will shorten/prolong it based on your finding the book. Don't feel too rushed. Gug01 (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi again Gug01, I think I have now addressed the points above. Anything else, even if not directly pertinent to the GA requirements? Any comments on readability/understandability? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Great job writing the article! There's really nothing left to address in my opinion. PS. Is there an article about the final conquest of Egypt? B/c the link is red and it doesn't lead anywhere. Gug01 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Not yet, will be done soon, though; thanks again for taking the time and for your suggestions! Constantine ✍ 18:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
footnotes
can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

sound clips
, are also covered by this criterion.

^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] tnotes
can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] sound clips
, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]