Talk:Hamdan Qarmat/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 07:05, 2 October 2020 (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

I'm confused by this line: He was originally a carrier (of goods with oxen), enters the historical record with his conversion to the Isma'ili doctrine by the missionary (dā'ī) al-Husayn al-Ahwazi.[1][2] According to the sources this took place in or around AH 261 (874/875 CE) or AH 264 (877/878 CE).[1][2] What is "a carrier (of goods with oxen)"? And do you mean "He was originally a carrier (of goods with oxen), and enters..." " otherwise it wouldn't make sense. "to the sources" is also ambiguous, you should name them here or simply take the line out. (Or alternatively you could say "to contemporary/ancient sources"?)

The "However, the Twelver Shi'a scholar..." line has 6 commas and makes it rather choppy; rephrasing would be worthwhile here
- Done
The "His success was aided..." line is rather hard to read from the double "as well as" and two "ands". I would recommend reformatting to something like "His success was aided by many factors: the chaos of the Zanj Revolt then engulfing Iraq; the weakness of the Abbasid Caliphate;...."
- Done
That's all I could find....

Image looks good, coverage does as well considering the what little information I can see is available on the figure in the first place
All reliable sources, academic as well.
I'm puzzled by the "The Qarmatian movement after Hamdan's disappearance" section. It seems out of place for an article on Qarmat himself, not Qarmatians, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this. At the very least it should undoubtedly be moved into a new section as it is not part of his "life" – which is how the current formatting displays it. Aza24 (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair point. My reasoning is that, as the 'founder' of a sect, the subsequent history of that sect should at least be mentioned somehow, especially since this is not a topic of common knowledge. I have moved it to a separate section per your suggestion.
Overall this article looks really great, and was an interesting read. I'm putting it on hold for a week, although the issues are so few that I doubt you will need that long. Best - Aza24 (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: @Cplakidas: – are you going to be able to address these issues? Aza24 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Aza24, sorry for the delay, I was busy IRL. I am happy you liked the article, especially since making such topics accessible to the uninitiated is always tricky. Thanks for your suggestions, they have been implemented. Any further comments or suggestions, beyond GA concerns? Constantine ✍ 14:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everything looks great now, I think I'm fun with "subsequent history" section as long as it's not in the life section; it acts as a "legacy" section of some sort – which is standard on WP. Congrats on a well written and researched article! Passing now, best - Aza24 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]