Talk:Gökböri/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• The source of Hattin Estoire d'Eracles.jpg is a dead link; and it needs an explicit US PD tag.

Done - I think

• Consider adding alt text to the images.

I don't know what that entails

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing which you will wish to check.

Alt text: optional, but covered under MOS:ALT.

I have carried out a limited number of spot checks, which raise no issues.

Earwig gives a green light re plagiarism.

Focused on the subject. NPoV and stable.

• "He was known as Manafaradin to the Franks of the Crusader states" Information in the lead should be repeated in the main body. This isn't.

Fixed

• US PD is fixed; thanks. The Source, under Summary, is still dead.

I have substituted another image - I think it is better as it is closer in date - it has an active source

• "700 - 7,000" The values in the range should be separated by an unspaced en dash, per MOS:ENTO. Similarly with the page range for Patton.

Done, but variations in dashes confuse me

You are not alone in that.

• "a religious college the Dar al-Hadith al-Muzaffariya" → 'the religious college Dar al-Hadith al-Muzaffariya'.

I would prefer "a religious college, the Dar al-Hadith al-Muzaffariya", largely because it is not generally well-known. For illustration, the difference between "He founded a college, the Slough College of Performing Arts", and "He founded Imperial College London".

Fine. That works.

• Gibb: as a work within a volume, "The Aiyubids" should be within inverted commas, not in italics.

Done

• Similarly, Hazard has the use of italics and inverted commas the wrong way round.

Done

• Çaǧatay should use the same approach.

This is a journal title, does it have the same treatment?

Yes. Article title within inverted commas, journal name in italics.

Done

A very nice little article. Is it headed for FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I was surprised, when I was reading sources for the Battle of Arsuf, that such a prominent lieutenant of Saladin didn't already have an article. No, FAC is not a place I want to go to again! Urselius (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It is surprising, after all this time, what lacunae there still are in Wikipedia's historical coverage.

ACR perhaps? A much friendlier and more relaxed environment. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Good work. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed