Talk:Irghiz River skirmish/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 04:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at reviewing this article. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 04:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Images

• Both images have proper licenses.

MoS, structure, coverage, and grammar

Lead

• Add "the" before "Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire"
• "On the Irghiz River, Aktobe Region, Kazakhstan" → "On the Irghiz River (modern day Aktobe Region, Kazakhstan)" as it makes reference to a modern place
• Remove "Modern historians estimate" from both strength parameters in the infobox
• I moved the article's three campaignboxes into the infobox
• "in 1209 or 1219" → "1209 or 1219"
• Use an en dash at "1220-21"

•  Done all done.

Chronology

• "The battle is described, in varying levels of detail, by four separate chroniclers" → "The battle is described in varying levels of detail by four separate chroniclers" unnecessary commas
• Use an en dash at "1215-6"
• "highly suspect" WP:COLLOQUIAL(?)
• "One historian, citing the fact" which historian?
• "It is certain that" according to who?
• "One theory suggests" who's theory?

•  Done all done

Battle

• "assembled a force of his own, and rode to meet them" → "assembled a force of his own and rode to meet them" unnecessary comma

• Done

• "at least one modern historian" which modern historian?

• Done

• Who is De Hartog? Include his first name

• Done

• Who is Sverdrup? same as above

• Done

• "it is often cited" by who?

• Everyone, and I do mean everyone. I've attributed it to Barthold

• I see, alright.

• What's the relevance of the quote?

• To illustrate the Shah's reaction. It's not necessary, should I remove it?

• I personally don't see it's connection to the events, and it isn't necessary for the article so it should be removed.

•  Done

Overall

• Coverage seems to be sufficient for what is known about the battle. It is interesting to me that we don't even know for certain what year it occurred in.
• No war edits ongoing on the page.
• Categories are good.
• Article is well referenced.
• Sources are reliable.
• I saw that Category:1209 in Asia did not exist, so I created it and added it to the page.
• Well written, no misspellings which I saw.
• Article follows a neutral point of view.

Well done. This article is close to good article status, just a few edits and it should be able to pass this review. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 05:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13: have responded, thanks very much. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Looks about done, just the issue about the quote and I'll pass it. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 17:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13:, all  Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Very well done on this article, very interesting battle. I'll give is a pass to good article status. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 20:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.