Talk:Gökböri/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source of Hattin Estoire d'Eracles.jpg is a dead link; and it needs an explicit US PD tag.

Done - I think

Consider adding alt text to the images.

I don't know what that entails

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little copy editing which you will wish to check.

Alt text: optional, but covered under MOS:ALT.

I have carried out a limited number of spot checks, which raise no issues.

Earwig gives a green light re plagiarism.

Focused on the subject. NPoV and stable.

"He was known as Manafaradin to the Franks of the Crusader states" Information in the lead should be repeated in the main body. This isn't.

Fixed

US PD is fixed; thanks. The Source, under Summary, is still dead.

I have substituted another image - I think it is better as it is closer in date - it has an active source

"700 - 7,000" The values in the range should be separated by an unspaced en dash, per MOS:ENTO. Similarly with the page range for Patton.

Done, but variations in dashes confuse me

You are not alone in that.

"a religious college the Dar al-Hadith al-Muzaffariya" → 'the religious college Dar al-Hadith al-Muzaffariya'.

I would prefer "a religious college, the Dar al-Hadith al-Muzaffariya", largely because it is not generally well-known. For illustration, the difference between "He founded a college, the Slough College of Performing Arts", and "He founded Imperial College London".

Fine. That works.

Gibb: as a work within a volume, "The Aiyubids" should be within inverted commas, not in italics.

Done

Similarly, Hazard has the use of italics and inverted commas the wrong way round.

Done

Çaǧatay should use the same approach.

This is a journal title, does it have the same treatment?

Yes. Article title within inverted commas, journal name in italics.

Done

A very nice little article. Is it headed for FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was surprised, when I was reading sources for the Battle of Arsuf, that such a prominent lieutenant of Saladin didn't already have an article. No, FAC is not a place I want to go to again! Urselius (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is surprising, after all this time, what lacunae there still are in Wikipedia's historical coverage.

ACR perhaps? A much friendlier and more relaxed environment. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 19 September 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