Talk:Battle of Alexandretta

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Alexandretta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 20:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Cplakidas, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Cplakidas, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article and I find that it exceeds the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few suggestions and comments that must be addressed prior to its passage. Thank you for all your phenomenal work on this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, 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):

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede adequately stands alone as a concise overview of the battle. The lede defines the battle, establishes context for the battle, explains why the battle is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the battle.
• The info box template is beautifully formatted, and its contents are cited within the prose, utilizing inline citations.
• The lede's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose below, and its references are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Background

• In the second sentence of the first paragraph, consider rewriting as: "and handed over to Byzantine forces the entirety" or "and handed over to the Byzantine Empire the entirety"
• It wouldn't hurt to wiki-link Infidel in this instance.
• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Siege of Antioch and battle at Alexandretta

• al-Maqrizi should be introduced as an Egyptian historian to make it consistent with the introduction of the preceding three historians in this first paragraph of this section.
• Alexandretta should be wiki-linked in this section as it is its first mention within the main prose.
• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Aftermath

• Is the remainder of the first sentence referenced from Walker?
• Paul Walker should be introduced as a historian in this section to make him consistent with the preceding historians.
• "The Fatimids were victorious before Fustat, however, and eventually managed to drive the Qarmatians out of Syria and restore their control over the restive province." I could possibly be missing something here, but what occurred at Fustat to make its mention notable here?
• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

• Hi and thanks for taking the time to review this! I've made the suggested changes. As for your questions on the last section, yes, the remainder is referenced by Walker pp. 439–440, and Fustat was the Egyptian capital; it provides information on how far the Qarmatians penetrated before being driven back. From your comments I gather that you had no trouble following the article, but are there any spots where you feel more detail/context would improve things? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Constantine, upon my re-review of your article, I find that you have beautifully illustrated a fitting narrative of the battle, and you have provided enough detail and context to that end. My only other suggestion would be to include a brief descriptor of the Qarmatians when they are introduced later in the article. I suggest something like... "the Qarmatians, an Isma'ilist group originating from Eastern Arabia" or something like this, as I was previously unfamiliar with the group. It also wouldn't hurt to explain in the lede that the Byzantine forces were led by a trusted eunuch of John I Tzimiskes' household, the patrikios Nicholas. This is rather unorthodox and is notable enough for inclusion in the lede. Despite those suggestions, I feel that this article meets the criteria for Good Article status in its current form, and it is hereby a privilege and pleasure for me to pass it! Congratulations on another job well done, Constantine. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)