Jump to content

Talk:Al-Azhar Mosque/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC) I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intial comments

[edit]
  • I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this point. I've now completed a couple of quick readings of this article. It has the appearance of being a good well-referenced and well-illustrated article, so it aught to get through the GA process during this submission, but we shall see.
  • I am now starting the detailed review. I'll be going through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point I will mostly be commenting on "problems", if any; so if I don't have much to say about a particular section or subsection that infers that I consider it to be OK. This process could take a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name -
  • Generally OK; however, it would help the reader if more dates were added; currently to find out dates it is necessary, for example to look up al-Aziz Billah and work out who was caliphate of al-Mu’izz.
  • History -
    • Fatimid Caliphate & Ayyubid dynasty -
  • These look OK.
    • Mamluk Sultanate -
    • I'm not sure what this is trying to say: "Followers of the Hanafi madh'hab, no restriction on the number of congregational mosques applied.[16]"
    • Province of the Ottoman Empire, French occupation -
  • These look OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Muhammad Ali Dynasty and British occupation & Post-revolution -
  • These look OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A comprehensive article that appears to have the potential of becoming a WP:FAC.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. I have two comments above, one concerning meaning of a phrase and the other a suggestion for minor improvement; however, neither of these are sufficient to cause me to without GA until they are "fixed". Congratulations on producing a comprehensive article. Pyrotec (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]