Talk:Asad ibn Abdallah al-Qasri/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: Quadell (talk · contribs) 23:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Cplakidas

Regarding my reviewing style, issues I identify below will be prepended by the number of the relevant GA criterion. As they are resolved, I will cross out the issue number. Comments that are not GA requirements are not prepended.

  • Suggestion Consider explicitly mentioning Day of Thirst, rather than linking as "severe defeat" and "major defeat".
  • 1a The lead twice uses the term "Turgesh pressure". The second time should probably be reworded; would simply saying "by the Turgesh" suffice?
You have skillfully reworded this section to avoid this problem. – Quadell (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 The phrase "saving Muslim rule" in the lead, and "saved Muslim rule" in the Legacy section, could be seen as very slightly POV. I believe "maintaining Muslim rule" would be more flatly factual. Similarly, "growing Turgesh menace" should really be "growing Turgesh opposition" or something.
  • 1b The lead is a little too short. I think it should be expanded to two paragraphs, including more information from "Origin" and about his various victories and defeats.
Your expansion of the lead is excellent! – Quadell (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 The "Origin" section says "...in the times of Muhammad, and is accounted as one of the Prophet's Companions." You should introduce Muhammad with a title on first mention, but not the second, so try "...in the times of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and is accounted as one of his companions."
  • 1a The "Origin" section says "Other traditions, however, hostile to Khalid, report that Asad was a runaway Jewish slave." There are a few clarity issues. First off, Khalid has not yet been mentioned, so you should say which Khalid you mean (or reword). Secondly, it's unclear if you mean Asad ibn Kurz (the great-grandfather) was reported to be a slave, or Asad ibn Abdallah (the great-grandson). Thirdly, by "Jewish slave", do you mean "a Jew and a slave" or "a slave held by Jews"? (Crone says only "slave", while I don't have access to Gibb.)
The sentence is now very clear and well-worded. – Quadell (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a When you say "According to Patricia Crone, along with his brother Khalid, Asad was...", it sounds almost like Patria and Khalid made the assessment. Rewording would fix that.
Again, this rewording is excellent. – Quadell (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "726/7" is not a standard date reference. Try something like "108 AH (726 or 727 AD)" instead. This applies to other date ranges with slashes used throughout the article. In particular, "in December 727/January 728" should probably be "in Ramadan 109 AH (December 727 or January 728 AD)".
    • There is still one part that says "Thus in 725/6..." – Quadell (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a The phrase "whose vassals the Turgesh were" sounds clunky. Try "to whom the Turgesh were vassals" or something similar.
This sentence is much clearer now. – Quadell (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a The following sentences are overly long and winding, and should be split into 2 or 3 sentences each:
    • The sentence beginning "Early in 735 Harith..."
    • The sentence beginning "He imprisoned Asim..."
    • The one beginning "In the same year, Asad moved..."
    • The one beginning "Following Harith's advice..."
    • The one beginning "Though this influence..." (which contains two direct quotes)
Honestly, I could not have reworded these better myself. – Quadell (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a "Asad's troops dared not cross the Oxus" has the wrong tone for an encyclopedia. How about "Asad's troops chose not to risk crossing the Oxus"?
  • 1b Saying that Harith "fought with distinction" is a sort of peacock term, best avoided.


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is a nice article. I like how it synthesizes the available sources to create a full picture of the governor and military leader. I've identified some issues, which I hope can be dealt with in a reasonable amount of time.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    All issues have been resolved
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    All issues have been resolved
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    The Reference and Sources sections are just about perfect.
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    This is not a problem.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article is impressively NPOV.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Images and captions are great. In particular, Wikipedia is always improved by using informative maps like File:Transoxiana 8th century.svg. Thank you for providing it.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I'm putting this nomination on hold. If all issues are resolved in the next seven days, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail. – Quadell (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This article now clearly passes all our GA criteria. All the issues I identified have been resolved, and the nominator's additional improvements have made the article better still. I'm happy to promote this to GA status. – Quadell (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thanks a lot for your time and for the thoroughness of this review! I have tried to rectify the points you raised so far. With the benefit of some time having elapsed between my writing the article and now, some further rewriting is probably in order, and I would like to re-check my sources on Harith's rebellion. I'll probably finish this over the weekend. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 12:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am very impressed with the improvements you have made to this article! With some additional work this weekend, I'm sure it will pass all our GA criteria with flying colors. As for this review, only a single stray slashed date format remains to be fixed. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. I've fixed the one date format, and rewritten the sequence of events regarding the rebellion of Harith to be a bit clearer and in an effort to fit all the sources. Each modern author has different sequence of events and details when describing the revolt, so I had to pick and choose to a degree, but I think the historical narrative as presented here is correct. I added Gardizi's name to support 20,000 Syrians statement taken from Blankinship 1994, as they are not found in Tabari, and Shaban for one explicitly says that Asad brought no new troops into the province. I tend to trust Blankinship a bit more in such matters, since I have generally found him to be more reliable in terms of chronology and little details. Constantine ✍ 14:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. I hope I get to work with you again sometime. – Quadell (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Thank you for an in-depth review that made the article much better! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asad_ibn_Abdallah_al-Qasri/GA1&oldid=587384532"