Talk:Battle of Baykand/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 23:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• No duplicate links (no action required)
• No problems with external links per Checklinks (no action required)
• No disambiguation links (no action required)
• Copyvio detector reports all clear (no action required)
• The image is properly licensed and has an appropriate caption (no action required)
• The article seems to be stable (no action required)
• Referencing appears to be fine (no action required)
• Prose/MOS:
  • I assume that "r" in "(r. 705–715)" means "reigned". While this is no dealbreaker here, perhaps r. would be helpful to casual readers.
  • Perhaps it would be good in terms of clarification to expand (mawali) to (non-Arab Muslims, referred to as mawali). Also - not a dealbreaker since the term is wikilinked, but may be helpful to readers.
  • The sentence Ashras tried to win over the loyalties of the local population and the native converts (mawali) by addressing some of their grievances on taxation, but soon this policy was reversed—possibly due to pressure from the Caliph himself—and the often brutal measures the Arab tax-gatherers employed to gather the taxes from the mawali and the local landed aristocracy (dihqans) soon led to a general revolt in Transoxiana. seems to be awfully long and may be better off split in two.
  • Per MOS:CONVERSIONS, the converted unit should be spelled out. That is possible by addition of "|abbr=off" parameter to the convert template.
  • Per MOS:QUOTE, quotation "being killed by the sword is nobler in (this) world and greater in reward with God than death by thirst" should employ square brackets instead of round ones.

Overall, nice article with little to mend. Great work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this article! Your suggestions have been implemented, except for the last one, where "(this)" is not an editorial comment on my part, but an exact quotation. If I may inquire, how did you find the article in terms of readability and level of detail/background information? Any suggestions for further improvement beyond GA-specific concerns? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. As far as readability is concerned, I have no qualm with the article other than the overly long sentence already noted (and fixed) above. I think the level of background info and details provided is quite appropriate too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

All clear now, passing nom.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)