Talk:Arab Agricultural Revolution/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 09:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This is not my area of expertise, but I'll try to do it justice...Vanamonde (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- All issues addressed
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Formatting issues fixed
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- All concerns addressed
- C. It contains no original research:
- All statements seem adequately supported by refs; AGF on offline sources
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig's tool is only flagging mirrors; and spot checks reveal no issues.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No issues with stability
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Image licenses all check out to the best of my knowledge
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Issues addressed
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- All issues addressed
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
[edit]- As a precursor to reviewing this, I read the previous review. I think the conclusion of the review was quite incorrect; I do not see a need to fail this. There is a kernel in all that chaff, however, which is the following. The page appears, intentionally, to be covering the paper and the debate which followed. The title of the page should therefore reflect that. I would suggest "Arab Agricultural Revolution Hypothesis"; or "conjecture", or perhaps even "theory", though it's not quite universally accepted, is it? That would define the scope for this fairly clearly, and the article would then address the topic adequately. Vanamonde (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- As you like. If as it now seems Watson was right, then the article is about a real event. If you still think it needs renaming, you can either move the article now and rename this GA page also, or wait till we're done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think the article could reasonably document a real event, but does not, in its current form; instead it's a solid and concise review of the theory. Since the general public and the scientific community understand "theory" somewhat differently, how about "thesis"? We can rename after the review is done. Vanamonde (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed, but I'd point out that AAR is the widely used name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think the article could reasonably document a real event, but does not, in its current form; instead it's a solid and concise review of the theory. Since the general public and the scientific community understand "theory" somewhat differently, how about "thesis"? We can rename after the review is done. Vanamonde (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- As you like. If as it now seems Watson was right, then the article is about a real event. If you still think it needs renaming, you can either move the article now and rename this GA page also, or wait till we're done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Images: Licensing is fine. I think the caption for this needs to be edited to describe exactly what the image is showing, which is unclear; and I'm also not sure whether the picture of the palace is necessary, though I'm happy to hear you explain why.
- Edited the arboriculture caption.
- I think the palace relevantly shows the level of culture that the Moors attained in Al-Andalus in the period, setting the context for the article.
"had isolated Europe from trading there." do you mean "prevented" in place of "Isolated"?
- Replaced.
Sentence beginning "Crops from Africa" is rather long, perhaps break it up?
- I tried a middle split, which made it worse. I've split a bit off the end, however.
The term "linked industries" is a trifle confusing, perhaps elaborate on it; in a new sentence, if needed?
- Replaced.
It would be helpful to hear what the "minor slips and larger errors" pointed out by Johns were.
- Given some examples small and large.
Which period is Ashtor talking about?
- Just after the Arab conquest.
I'd rather you didn't start a section with "However..."
- Replaced.
There's some flipping between present and past tense for the comments from the various scholars. "noted", followed by "observes"
Fixed a couple. Feel free to tweak if you see any others.
"cultivation remained minor" odd phrase..
- Tweaked.
I'm not certain you should mention Wikander and Oleson unless somebody has explicitly linked them to the AAR.
- Removed.
"noted that it had proven useful to many different historical agendas," I find this phrase, particularly "agendas", rather strange. Perhaps just say "had been widely used by historians" or some such?
- Replaced. It was his word, which was somewhat snarky of him really.
This is largely personal preference, but I'd suggest inserting the last sentence of the lead after the first sentence of the lead, and thereby creating a slightly more concise, two-paragraph lead. I'm not the biggest fan of single-sentence paragraphs. I'm not even certain you need to bold all of those terms.
- Done.
When I checked Earwig's tool, it flagged similarities with a website called muslimheritage.com. To me this suggests the site is lifting from this article, which makes its use as a source questionable...
- The 2002 Zaimeche article is certainly not based on us (2007 onwards). Zohor Idrisi's choice of the name "Muslim Agricultural Revolution" is likewise a statement of his own point of view, given that he knew Watson had named it differently. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- On a second look, it would appear that that website is only hosting this document, which would make it okay, I guess.
- The 2002 Zaimeche article is certainly not based on us (2007 onwards). Zohor Idrisi's choice of the name "Muslim Agricultural Revolution" is likewise a statement of his own point of view, given that he knew Watson had named it differently. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Do we have an isbn or a url for the Glick book?
- Added.
After a final readthrough, this seems well up to the standard. I will rename the page, as mentioned above, once I've passed it as a GA. Well done! Vanamonde (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)