Talk:Qadi al-Fadil

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that although he became a senior official under the Fatimids, Qadi al-Fadil supported Saladin's abolition of that dynasty? Source: Brockelmann & Cahen 1978, p. 376 " after the death of the last Fatimid, when Saladin himself became ruler of Egypt, al-Qadi al-Fadil was his right hand man in the execution of the necessary reforms" and in general his defection to the Ayyubid cause, covered in Lev 1999, pp. 17-21
  • ALT1: ... that Qadi al-Fadil began his career under the Fatimids, became Saladin's chief minister, and was renowned for the elegance of his epistolary writing? Source: Effectively a summary of the article.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Double florin

Created by Cplakidas (talk). Self-nominated at 19:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC).

• I am familiar with your [User:Cplakidas/Articles prolific work on historical articles]] so this shouldn't take too long. :)

Article review:

• New – created 17:25, 16 January 2022 by Cplakidas. (Same day as nom). YES
• Long enough – Prose size (text only): 10439 characters (1702 words) "readable prose size". YES
• Within policy
  • is neutral - article appears to not written in an overly positive, simply stating his achievements and praise with a source for each claim. Terms like "reportedly" give context when we don't 100% know what happened. YES
  • cites sources with inline citations - 5 sources are listed. I can't access every one, but user's track record + the one I checked gives me benefit of the doubt. YES
  • is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism - Earwig's Copyvio Detector reports 'Violation Unlikely 1.0% similarity' YES
• Hook
  • Format – Alt 1 (my preferred) is 149 characters with spacing. YES
  • Content interesting to a broad audience - I learnt a lot reading this article! Personally prefer Alt 1. YES
  • Hook fact is accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article - As user states, Hook is essentially a summary of the article and is backed up by the article's sources. YES
  • Hook is neutral. Like the rest of the article, hook's words are measured and based on reliable sourcing. YES.
• Other
  • QPQ – Template:Did you know nominations/Double florin YES
  • Image - N/A.

I am happy to approve this! --Coin945 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Promoting ALT1 to Prep 1 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Qadi al-Fadil/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • Link "caliph" at first use and at the first use in the body of the article?
    • Done
  • The lead feels a bit skimpy - perhaps a bit more on his early service and switch of allegiance? As well as a bit more on his prose style?
    • Good point, done.
• Service under Fatamids:
  • link "chancery"
    • Done
  • "there were no Sunni schools in Cairo" ... not sure what significance this has for whether or not he had judicial training?
    • He was himself Sunni, so if the title 'qadi' reflected a legal training, then he must have studied in a Sunni school. Hopefully clarified in the text now.
  • Links for "al-Silafi" and "Ibn Awf"?
    • Done.
  • either "became secretary to Shawar's son Kamil" or "became the secretary of Shawar's son Kamil"
    • Fixed.
• Switch:
  • "As a partisan of Shawar, Qadi al-Fadil had originally been an opponent of Shirkuh, who had invaded Egypt on behalf of his Syrian master, Nur al-Din, to the extent of supporting Shawar's decision to turn to the Crusaders for aid against the Syrian troops." VERY twisty sentence - suggest "As a partisan of Shawar, Qadi al-Fadil had originally been an opponent of Shirkuh, who had invaded Egypt on behalf of his Syrian master, Nur al-Din. Qadi al-Fadil's support extended to backing Shawar's decision to turn to the Crusaders for aid against the Syrian troops."
    • Twisty indeed. Rephrased.
  • "but they are generally doubtful" what is the "they" being referred to here - the accounts, the background, or the events?
    • Rephrased.
  • "His account of the extent of the conspiracy" - Qadi or Umara?
    • Qadi. Clarified.
• Service under Saladin:
  • "ruler until his death" who's death? - last person mentioned is the Ayyubid ruler
    • That's who is meant. Clarified.
  • "Saladin renewed his brief to supervise" who's brief? last person mentioned is Saladin
    • Clarified.
  • "and after he left Egypt" who left Egypt? last person mentioned in Saladin's brother
    • Clarified.
  • "he was not present" who was not present? last person mentioned is Saladin's nephew
    • Clarified.
• Writings:
  • "His dīwān was published" can we have a quick definition of dīwān?
    • Glossed over, but retained the link.
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: ... any progress? Ealdgyth (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, was extremely busy IRL, will deal with this today or over the following few days. Constantine ✍ 14:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, I think I am done. Any further comments, above and beyond GA concerns? Constantine ✍ 10:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we're good here. I won't certify that it's FA-prose worthy, but it's clear and understandable. Passing this now! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)