Talk:Al-Musta'li/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll pick this one up. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Lead:
"ninth Fatimid caliph and the 19th" either "ninth Fatimid caliph and the nineteenth" or "9th Fatimid caliph and 19th" per MOS- Fixed.
"his oldest brother and heir-apparent" was Nizar the heir apparant to Al-Mustali or to their father?- I have rephrased this because Nizar was never designated heir-apparent
"who the de facto ruler of the state" I think we're missing a verb here...- Indeed. Fixed.
Mention the death and rumors of poison in the lead?- Done.
- Disputed succession:
al-Mustansir had how many sons? Can we list them somewhere? I keep running across new ones throughout the article... they keep popping up!- I know how you feel, while writing this I was also often bewildered. I have added a note on al-Mustansir's sons. A full list is rather pointless, since most of them played no role in these events.
"In 1022, al-Mu'stali's son and successor, al-Amir" do you mean 1122? I can't see how al-Mustali's son could be alive in 1022 ...- Yes, of course. Thanks for catching that.
"whose birth had been publicly announced in 1160" where here I think you mean 1060?- Indeed. Fixed.
- Nizar's revolt:
"Nizar, in the meantime, fled to Alexandria, where he gained the support of the local governor and populace" did he flee to Alexandria from Cairo or directly to Cairo? We have him fleeing to Cairo in the section above...- Changed to 'went to Alexandria', obviously from Cairo. Is that OK?
- Works fine. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Changed to 'went to Alexandria', obviously from Cairo. Is that OK?
"title of al-Muṣṭafā li-Dīn Allāh (lit. 'the Chosen One for God's Religion')." this is the first translation of the regal title... shouldn't we do it for the others mentioned before? Also - link for regnal title?- Good point. To be consistent, I have changed the reference to the caliph to 'Ahmad' throughout until the point where his accession is mentioned. On the link, I don't know what exactly you mean.
- We go "placed Ahmad on the throne and declared him caliph as al-Mustaʿlī bi'llāh (lit. 'The One Raised Up by God')." and "proclaimed Abdallah as caliph with the regnal name al-Muwaffaq ('The Blessed One')." and "proclaimed himself imam and caliph with the title of al-Muṣṭafā li-Dīn Allāh ('The Chosen One for God's Religion')." - are all of these regnal names or are they regnal titles - we call them "name" or "title" seemingly interchangably. And on the first usage we should link to either "regnal name" or "regnal title". Ealdgyth (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I understand. Standardized to 'regnal name' throughout.
- We go "placed Ahmad on the throne and declared him caliph as al-Mustaʿlī bi'llāh (lit. 'The One Raised Up by God')." and "proclaimed Abdallah as caliph with the regnal name al-Muwaffaq ('The Blessed One')." and "proclaimed himself imam and caliph with the title of al-Muṣṭafā li-Dīn Allāh ('The Chosen One for God's Religion')." - are all of these regnal names or are they regnal titles - we call them "name" or "title" seemingly interchangably. And on the first usage we should link to either "regnal name" or "regnal title". Ealdgyth (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Good point. To be consistent, I have changed the reference to the caliph to 'Ahmad' throughout until the point where his accession is mentioned. On the link, I don't know what exactly you mean.
"rejected it" I think you want "rejected him" or "rejected al-Mustali's accession".- Indeed. Fixed.
- Reign:
we've already linked "Arwa al-Sulayhi" earlier... so no link needed here. Not sure how to shorten the name though...- Unlinked. The name can remain, just to make sure that she is identified correctly, IMO.
"the Fatimids stood in increasing rivalry to the Sunni Seljuks and the Seljuk-backed Abbasid caliph, al-Mustazhir" maybe "the Fatimids faced an increasing rivalry with the Sunni Seljuks and the Seljuk-backed Abbasid caliph, al-Mustazhir"?
- As usual, I did a bit of copyediting - please double check it.
- I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
- I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ealdgyth I think I've finally addressed your concerns, please have a look. If there is nothing else, thanks for a thorough and helpful review! Constantine ✍ 11:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ealdgyth I think I've finally addressed your concerns, please have a look. If there is nothing else, thanks for a thorough and helpful review! Constantine ✍ 11:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)