Talk:Qarmatian invasion of Iraq/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 20:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I will begin this review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• You mention that the Qarmatians were Shia and that other Shia sympathizers flocked to Bahrayn. I think you need to also mention that the Abbasids were Sunni to better contextualize the conflict between the two.
  • Done, but caveat: in 900, calling the Abbasids 'Sunni' is not entirely correct. As the article mentions, there were several Shi'a sympathizers in high posts in the Abbasid government, and even some caliphs toyed with Shi'a sympathies. Sunnism did not really coalesce until the Sunni Revival in the 11th century.
• for 7 days → for seven days per MOS:NUMERAL
  • Done.
• "to confront the Qarmatian menace" - reword this
  • Why? What is the problem?

I feel like the wording is non neutral in this case.--Catlemur (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• On the heels of their victory at Kufa - MOS:IDIOM
  • Rephrased.
• Wikilink: baggage train, chamberlain.--Catlemur (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Catlemur, I've dealt with most of the issues above. Please have a look. Apart from the one unclear point above, is there anything else? Constantine ✍ 18:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: I apologize. I got really busy IRL.--Catlemur (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Catlemur: No worries, take your time. Constantine ✍ 18:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Catlemur: a small reminder. Constantine ✍ 11:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: I moved to a new place and got screwed over by the telecom company, got internet yesterday. I will finish the review in the coming days.--Catlemur (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Catlemur: Oh wow, sorry to hear that. Please don't stress yourself on my account, I just wanted to know if you're still on it. Best of luck with everything! Constantine ✍ 15:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• There is an inconsistent Engvar is the article, I assume you are going for British English. That means that the following alterations must be made:

stabilizing→stabilising sympathizer→sympathiser mobilize→mobilise mobilization→mobilisation recognized→recognised

• The wikilink "fighting in the desert plains" to desert warfare.Catlemur (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Catlemur: I am indeed going for British English, but contrary to common belief, '-ize' is perfectly acceptable in British English. On the link to desert warfare, as the article mostly concerns modern warfare, I don't think it is appropriate (and it is a poor article at that). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:06, 19 May 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Catlemur (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)