Talk:Kingdom of al-Abwab/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@User:Gog the Mild Do you wanna review it? LeGabrie (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sure. But for future reference you shouldn't open the assessment page unless you are assessing it. The first signature on an assessment page goes down as the assessor. Officially you are now assessing your own article. I'll see if I can fix it.
- In any case, happy to look at it. I'll skim it tomorrow and probably start in over the weekend. (It had better be good - I am writing this without having actually looked at the article!) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Good work.
- I have made some edits. Could you check and flag up here anything you are not happy with.
You happy with these?
- In the infobox you have "Approximate extent of Alodia based on accounts of Ibn Hawqal.png" as the flag of Alodia. I assume that this is an error?
Yeah, forgot to delete the ".png". Has been deleted now. LeGabrie (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
That wasn't me. By coincidence another editor picked it up.
- "Al-Qashqandi wrote that the king of al-Abwab had..." When was this written?
He apparently finished his work in 1412, but wrote about the events of 1276, 1316 and 1367. The thing about the royal title is mentioned without giving any specific date. Should I write "Al-Qashqandi wrote in 1412..."?LeGabrie (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes please.
- "The assassin who was ordered to Dongola" This guy appears from nowhere. Could we have some background or explanation? Alternatively, replace "The", with 'An'.
He was actually mentioned in the text before ("History", last sentence of the first paragraph). LeGabrie (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought that it might be the same assassin. You need to link them somehow. Possibly make the second mention something like "The assassin who had watched over the Mamluk puppet king in Dongola was an Ismaeli Muslim." Or you may have your own ideas. But at the moment he is described in two different ways and I don't see how a reader could be expected to understand that they are the same person.
- "albeit only superficially so" What is meant by this? How is one "superficially" Muslim?
By drinking alcohol, not praying five times per day, having barely any knowledge of the Quran or the Sunnah, sticking to pre-Islamic rituals and so on. The Funj, who succeeded both al-Abwab and Alodia, were also only very superficial Muslims until a more orthodox Islam prevailed from the early 18th century onwards. Anyway, here is the original source: "The second [group of people spreading Islam] were the Arab tribes who overran the Sudan. Most of these probably, like all nomads, were imperfectly Islamized (...)".
Right. Thanks. The word you need is "nominally". If you are happy with that, could you replace "superficially" with it.
More to follow.Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
A random check of sources and cites shows a careful use of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild Done. LeGabrie (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Another fine piece of work. Well written, nicely detailed and patches together what sources there are well. Happy to assess this as a Good Article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
