Jump to content

Talk:Shibl al-Dawla Nasr/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 17:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will review in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 17:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

The usual fine job, easy to read, comprehensive, and well referenced. Only some minor comments/suggestions:

  • Made some copyedits for minor style issues, links, etc. as more expedient.
  • Lede says his reign began in 1029/30, but infobox has this as May 1029 when the battle of al-Uqhuwana happened, and the main article says 'In the aftermath of al-Uqhuwana, Nasr and Thimal ruled Aleppo jointly, ' which indicates sometime (soon?) after May 1029, but not 1030. I realize the latter refers to his ouster of Thimal, but this may not be so obvious. Can we reconcile these somehow?
  • It may not be obvious to a reader quite who the 'Bedouin allies' were. Perhaps smth like 'In 1029, he supported his fellow Bedouin ally...'?
  • and the subsequent loss of the Mirdasids' central Syrian possessions is in effect repeated with more detail later on at In the aftermath of their defeat at al-Uqhuwana, the Mirdasids lost Sidon, Baalbek, Homs, and Rafaniyya, so it is rather redundant.
  • Close repetition: In the aftermath of al-Uqhuwana...In the aftermath of their defeat at al-Uqhuwana
  • ...on the Euphrates River near Iraq 'near Iraq' is odd: is modern or ancient Iraq meant, and what exactly does 'near' mean (and why is this important)?
  • 13th-century local historian Yahya of Antioch unless a different Yahya of Antioch is meant, Yahya lived in the 11th century.
  • Do we know when Nasr first received his title of 'Shibl al-Dawla'?
  • Be consistent in the transliteration of Arabic terms, either strict transliteration with diacritics (e.g. khāṣtuʾl-imām) or without (e.g. ahdath); IIRC, MOS recommends the latter
  • Done.
  • which was effectively run by Ali al-Jarjara'i add that he was the vizier?
  • In the infobox, add the period in 1029-30 where he shared rule with Thimal
  • Chapter title and ISBN for Smoor?

Once these are addressed, I will have another look. Constantine ✍ 10:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cplakidas: Thanks for taking time to review this, and for your suggestions. Other than the above, let me know if anything else.
Note: I only recently came across Bianquis 1989 and will begin to mine this valuable source for information about Nasr, which is found in summary form in Bianquis's EI2 entry on the Mirdasids, in the coming weeks. Al Ameer (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: I have now re-reviewed the article. My comments are addressed, and I could find nothing more to complain about ;). I am happy to pass this now, and I expect to be seeing it at ACR or FA at some point, once Bianquis has been incorporated. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Thank you once again. And that is indeed the plan. Al Ameer (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shibl_al-Dawla_Nasr/GA1&oldid=1132291501"