Talk:Al-Azhar Mosque/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC) I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Intial comments
[edit]- I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this point. I've now completed a couple of quick readings of this article. It has the appearance of being a good well-referenced and well-illustrated article, so it aught to get through the GA process during this submission, but we shall see.
- I am now starting the detailed review. I'll be going through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point I will mostly be commenting on "problems", if any; so if I don't have much to say about a particular section or subsection that infers that I consider it to be OK. This process could take a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Name -
- Generally OK; however, it would help the reader if more dates were added; currently to find out dates it is necessary, for example to look up al-Aziz Billah and work out who was caliphate of al-Mu’izz.
- History -
- Fatimid Caliphate & Ayyubid dynasty -
- These look OK.
- Mamluk Sultanate -
- I'm not sure what this is trying to say: "Followers of the Hanafi madh'hab, no restriction on the number of congregational mosques applied.[16]"
- Province of the Ottoman Empire, French occupation -
- These look OK.
Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Muhammad Ali Dynasty and British occupation & Post-revolution -
- These look OK.
Pyrotec (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive article that appears to have the potential of becoming a WP:FAC.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA-status. I have two comments above, one concerning meaning of a phrase and the other a suggestion for minor improvement; however, neither of these are sufficient to cause me to without GA until they are "fixed". Congratulations on producing a comprehensive article. Pyrotec (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)