Talk:Al-Mu'tamid/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 12:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing for a review. Miyagawa (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"During the reign of his predecessor, his nephew al-Muhtadi, al-Mu'tamid was imprisoned in Samarra. He was released after al-Muhtadi was deposed, and selected by the military as his successor." - needs a citation
- This was left over from a previous version, and I have not been able to find a source. I replaced it with some details on Muhtadi's deposition and Mu'tamid's names. Constantine ✍ 12:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate link to Al-Mutawakkil (it's linked in the first line of the previous paragraph)
- Fixed. Constantine ✍ 12:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Baghdad is linked to in the second mention rather than the first.
- Fixed. Constantine ✍ 12:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"during his tenure, the Caliph retained " - missing a capital at the start of the sentence.
- Fixed. Constantine ✍ 12:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through the article, the only other issue I have is the lead. While yes, it does summarise the article overall it can probably do with a touch more detail. Mostly related to the attempted flight to Egypt section as it doesn't really discuss this in the lead at present.
- Good point. I have expanded the lede. Constantine ✍ 12:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a good job, only a few niggles and not much else. There's a few sentences where there are several commas used, but it never starts being a run on sentence in any of the individual cases. Placing on hold for the seven days. Miyagawa (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Miyagawa, thanks for taking the time to review this. Apart from the issues above and beyond GA requirements, I'd be interested to know how it reads to someone who is, presumably, unfamiliar with the subject and the period. Were you able to follow it, or should there be more context? Or are there any places where comprehensibility might otherwise be improved? Best regards and a happy new year! Constantine ✍ 12:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know some very vague background concepts thanks to games such as Crusader Kings 2, and I think that the main sticking points are solved by wikilinking here more than giving further background. The most unusual terms in this are pretty much "Abbisid"/"Saffarids" as there's no context here for what those group is. But you can't be expected to give background to those very centric terms in every biography of an Abbisid/Saffarid. Otherwise I think readers would find it quite easy to follow. Thanks for making those changes, I'm happy to promote. Miyagawa (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]