Talk:Battle of Tawahin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DarthBotto (talk · contribs) 06:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Failed – Unfortunately, due to the massive gaps in information and broad focus of this article, I cannot pass or hold this article for the time being. It is a very fine start, but it still has some work to do. Please continue with the flow of the article and it will have a good shot at GA status.

Intro

• While there is nothing inherently flawed about this portion, it does not suffice for several reasons.
  • This section should be twice as long, giving an expanded detail about the flow and characteristics of the battle, as well as a synopsis leading up to the battle's climax for the first paragraph.
  • The second paragraph should give a brief overview of the battle's overall consequences, more general information of how Syria returned to Tulunid's control and any other poignant details that can be said.
  • In essence, the intro merely states, "Here's how what happened, boom, done". There should be more in regards to my previous comments.

Background

• The first paragraph is well-written overall.
• Certain piped links may be better served unpiped. For example, the "open revolt" should be identified as the Log Revolution. I would suggest having these links in their pure, unpiped form, with a short synopsis for each.
  • This may require some major sentence structure changes, but it will be necessary.
• The second paragraph begins with a sentence that runs, runs and runs. It should be reconstructed, which may make it longer, but will also add to the emphasis upon the background. You may find that this will make the background section longer than most Good Articles, but with such a major occurrence, it would be necessary.
• Use the long-hand format of MM/DD/YYYY.
• The third paragraph may need to be placed in a new section, which I will digress upon...

...now.

Proposed section: Prelude

• That paragraph belongs in a new section that details the events immediately leading up to the battle. This section is necessary for this article to be considered for GA status.
  • This section must first include information featuring comprehensive information leading to the battle. Typically, this features three paragraphs.
  • There needs to be a subsection that discusses the order of the battle.

Abbasid invasion of Syria and Battle of Tawahin

• Much of the information about the invasion of Syria should be transferred to the Prelude section.
• This section should be dedicated solely to the Battle of Tawahin. The information on this particular sortie is generally comprehensive, so this regard is secure.
• In several parts, there are three to four scholarly, (and I mean scholarly), sources packed together. Considering that these are mostly for supporting quotations or short details, I believe these references may be spread out for their respective paragraphs.

Aftermath

• This is well-written, but like the intro, is not substantial and therefore, not satisfactory.
  • Considering the scope of this sortie, this should be remedied by doubling or tripling the scope of this section.
  • This overview reads strictly like that, an overview, which isn't satisfactory. There should be more detail about how Sa'd al-Aysar rebelled at Damascus, how Khumarawayh followed up with more victories exactly and how al-Muwaffaq was forced to recognize the situation.
    • In essence, there is a massive amount of information on the aftermath, but it isn't present yet.

Final thoughts

• This is well-written, but is not ready for Good Article status, due to the lack of comprehensive information, and possibly due to the youth of this article.
• In most every other regard, this article is up to par. If my suggestions are implemented, as well as the expansion of information, it should be ready for my GA support.
• I apologize if my review is broad, but because of the lack of comprehensive information, there is less I can say, unfortunately.

Thanks for a comprehensive review, but might I have some time to address the points you raised before summarily dismissing it? That is the point of a GA review, after all... This is the first time any of the several dozen articles I've sent to GAR have been speedily failed, and AFAIK this is done only when there are glaring omissions, tags, POV disputes, etc. Since none of this is the case, and since much of what you point out above on the article's structuring is down to personal preference, I urgently ask for the nomination to be re-opened and to allow me to discuss why and how I've done certain things.... Constantine ✍ 10:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)