Talk:Sack of Damietta (853)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 22:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the criteria checks out. Image is fine. Some prose comments:

The Sack of Damietta in 853 was a major success for the Byzantine Empire.; this seems a somewhat odd start. I get no understanding from the first line as to what this is. I feel like it should open to say it was a naval sacking.
- I've rewritten it a bit. --Constantine ✍ 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Background; is it worth having a couple of lines about what the Byzantine Empire is to start this section?
- Hmmm, I have thought about giving an introduction, but given the brevity of the article, I felt it would be out of proportion to the rest of it. Anyhow, I think most somewhat educated people have probably heard of the Byzantine Empire. Constantine ✍ 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In 852/3; did they do this across these two years? Or is it uncertain which year?
- The latter; in both Byzantine and Muslim calendars, the years used fell on both Julian/Gregorian years, or can only be approximately dated. I saw that I have not been consistent in use, I've fixed that. --Constantine ✍ 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reportedly of three fleets consisting of 300 ships; per WP:WEASEL, consider referencing who reported it
- Done. --Constantine ✍ 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
general; do you mean General?
- Changed to the more generic "commander". --Constantine ✍ 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
for it was from Egypt that the Abbasids sent aid to Crete; this was a bit out of context in the sentence. Consider splitting it out and adding further context.
- Done. --Constantine ✍ 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
originally; originally when? -ly adverbs often add vagueness, consider being specific
and later with the; sorry this didn't make sense to me, as an extension of the sentence it doesn't associate with the first part
- I've tried to fix both the above. --Constantine ✍ 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further suggestions; consider saying who raised these options
- Done. --Constantine ✍ 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Byzantines returned and raided Damietta again in 854 and possibly in 855, when the arrival of a Byzantine fleet in Egypt was evidently anticipated by the Abbasid authorities, while Farama was attacked in 859.; the fragments in this sentence don't seem to relate in a complete sense. The middle fragment probably needs it's own sentence and context.
- Done, and also added a bit on the long-term effects on the Byzantine side and the Cretans (there were none). --Constantine ✍ 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anbasa; Anbasah?
- Fixed. --Constantine ✍ 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my edits. Nice article :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Errant, thanks for taking the time, for your edits and suggestions. I've tried to address most of them, and in the process have also added some extra context. Any further suggestions for improvement are welcome! Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great; happy to pass this as Good Article :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your time and effort! Constantine ✍ 10:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]