Talk:Battle of Marj Rahit (684)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 11:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll take a look at this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"which would contribute to much strife and instability for the remainder of the Umayyad Caliphate." Optional: remove "much".

~~Hmmm, it contributed more than its share, I'd say, so I'd prefer to leave it in ;) Otherwise I could replace it with~~ Changed to "would be a constant source of strife..."

"and even laid siege to Mecca" I think that you either need to explain why this is so surprising or delete "even".

Clarified.

"who rallied around the governor of Damascus" Capital G.

Fixed.

"The most enduring legacy of Marj Rahit was the consolidation of the Qays–Kalb split in Syria" 'consolidating a split' reads very oddly. Optional: something like 'the confirmation of the enduring Qays–Kalb split'?

Changed to "hardening", is that better?

It is.

"between the two groups became a fixture of the Arab world over the next decades" "next" -> 'following'.

Fixed.

No images? It could really do with a location map. I dug out my trusty Muir's and I am familiar with the area and era.

Good point. I've added a map, plus another reference on the approx. location of the plaon.

Um. That's all I could find. This is one of your best pieces of work, and that is saying something. Can I seriously suggest that you reconsider taking it to ACR.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time and for the kind comments :). Much of the credit has to go to the sources, Kennedy and especially Hawting, whose book on the Umayyads presents the subject with admirable clarity and succinctness; I heartily recommend them if you are interested in the topic. On an ACR, I'll think about it. If neither I nor Al Ameer son, who is our resident early Islamic Syria expert, can find much to add to the article over the next few months, it is very likely. Constantine ✍ 22:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed