GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Urwa ibn al-Zubayr/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 17:33, 1 May 2023 (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:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Will gladly take this on, but it will be some days before I get to it. Constantine 17:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits; your ce, like Al Ameer's, is always helpful. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I modified the sentence but didn't split out of fear of choppy sentences. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed this one too. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but I might have screwed up some definite articles there ;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified and linked. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, specified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added Second Fitna map. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Shoemaker is the only scholar from the skeptical camp who has published a detailed work on the subject. If I find more, I would be glad to add of course. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article was their response to Shoemaker's criticism, and I had wanted to refer to it briefly, but then ended up not using it out of fear of overusing the work of these two scholars (i.e. Goerke and Schoeler). Hidden for now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Excellent article, comprehensive and informative, well written and understandable by a non-expert, with impeccable references. A pleasure to review :) Constantine 13:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the through review Constantine, and for the appreciation, of course :) I think I've addressed all of the points. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good, AhmadLX, passing now. Constantine 11:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by AhmadLX (talk). Self-nominated at 17:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Urwa ibn al-Zubayr; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: @AhmadLX: Good article. Needs a QPQ though. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Thanks for reviewing . QPQ is now done. After saving my review, I realized that it was your nom ;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Onegreatjoke The qpq was done over 10 days ago. Is there anything else missing here? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it's good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Modern historians -> modern Western historians[edit]

Hello 156.196.169.59, I'm not sure whether I understand the rationale given in your edits [1][2] changing "modern historians" to "modern Western Historians", but even if only Western historians "have debated the authenticity of the Urwa corpus of traditions" (which I think is a questionable statement), I don't see why it would be relevant to mention that in this context? What difference does it make, in this particular context, whether the historians doing the research are 'Western' or not? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 15:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously "modern historians" means those who publish WP:RS. It is irrelevant if they are "Western" or "Eastern" or Martian. If it is only what the IP calls "Westerns" that publish stuff on this subject that meets our RS requirements, then Western = modern. I'm going to restore modern. If the IP wishes to change that, they will have to show "Eastern" RS which differ from the "Western" RS on the matter. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]