Talk:Kisrawan campaigns (1292–1305)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 10:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I will start the review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Replace Baydara with Badr al-Din Baydara in the lede and infobox.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Provide an extra paragraph on the differences between the Maronites, Twelver Shia Muslims, Alawites and Druze. Were they treated differently by the rulers of the Islamic Levant? Was there a particular incentive to engage in this sort of raiding or was this a cultural melting pot of lawlessness? The 1305 campaign and Historiography sections give hints as to why things went that way but this is not enough.

• I will try to elaborate on this and update you hopefully in very short time. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Catlemur: I have expanded the Background and Historiography sections. Let me know if this is satisfactory, or should be trimmed or further expanded. Thanks Al Ameer (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC

@Al Ameer son: Very well done. Just move the wikilink for Stefan Winter to the first mention and remove the author-link from his second book.--Catlemur (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Catlemur: Done. Al Ameer (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink:punitive expedition, Latakia, Homs, pincer movements.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• "A 4,000-strong garrison of Turkish troops was stationed in the city." - Why were Turks stationed in an Arab city?

• Changed it to "Mamluk troops", if this suffices. I found the distinction "Turkish", used by the source, as useful to separate them from the local Druze Buhturids who were also technically Mamluk troops, but other than that it is not necessary. The Mamluks were a military ruling caste of manumitted slave soldiers (and their descendants) who were ethnic Turks or 'Turkified' Circassians and even Mongols and Slavs. Arabic was the language of the state, the Muslim religion and the spoken language of most people in Egypt and the Levant, but the term 'Arab' at that time generally referred to Bedouins/Arab tribesmen or people who were descended from such tribes. Tripoli had been a Frankish city until its capture by the Mamluks and the ethnic identity of its residents in the few years afterward is not clear. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Provide a copyright tag that proves that File:BattleOfHoms1299.JPG is public domain in the US.

• Done now, I believe. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• The blurb under File:BattleOfHoms1299.JPG is too long, it essentially repeats what has already been said in the article proper. Something along the lines of "An illustration of the 1299 Battle of Wadi al-Khaznadar" would suffice.

• Shortened. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Add a category related to the persecution of the Maronites to the article. I found Category:Persecution of Christians by Muslims, perhaps there is a more suitable one.--Catlemur (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Created Category:History of the Maronites and added Category:Persecution of Christians by Muslims. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Catlemur: Thanks for taking up this review. Please excuse the delay, I had not added the review page to my watchlist. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• I read through the article again and noticed that you use both Kisrawan and Keserwan. Are they the same region? If that is the case it would be nice to use one name consistently. If not, please clarify what's the difference between the two.--Catlemur (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Catlemur: 'Kisrawan' is the name used by the sources in this article and I believe the common name overall. 'Keserwan', I presume, is the transliteration of the colloquial name for the region. Spelling is consistent now. Al Ameer (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: --Catlemur (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)