Jump to content

Talk:Imru' al-Qais

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleImru' al-Qais was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 11, 2011Good article nomineeListed
July 16, 2013Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Imru' al-Qais/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Two found and fixed, please check that I have chosen the correct targets.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of four paragraphs for the lead.
Update: The lead has been brought into compliance with the WP:LEAD. It contains 4 paragraphs. Word for word, is shorter than the lead for the article on Napoleon Bonaparte, as well as the lead for the article on Winston Churchill-- both Good Articles.Maitham d (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Stray sentences need to be consolidated into paragraphs.
Update: The most egregious stray sentences have all been consolidated. Maitham d (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I made a number of copy-edits to correct spelling and place references after punctuation as required by the MoS.
    Prose is good enough to meet the criteria.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Article appears to be adequately referenced, assume good faith for off-line sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Sufficient coverage without over detail.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Different historians and literati will surely continue to reinterpret Imru' al-Qais' life and works from a variety of perspectives. What is certain is his importance to the Arab cultural identity and its historical narrative. Unless attributed, this is a point of view statement.
    I have marked Some[who?] have suggested that Imru' al-Qais could have been influenced by the purported Mazdakism of his grandfather, though there is little direct evidence to support this. as the use of some here is a weasel word.
Update: "Different historians..." passage has been deleted. "Some have suggested..." passage has been modified to more accurately reflect the sourcing of the information. Maitham d (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    No images used.
  3. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On Hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator has asked for extension. Hold extended until 17 March. GAN is not meant to be a lengthy process so this will be the limit. I answer to the nominator's queries, extension granted, you should be able to resolve the who question in seven days, no - images are not required (see WP:GACR for the criteria), compliance with WP:LEAD is a GA criterion. Please leave any further queries or points on this page, thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I believe that this now passes muster, so I am happy to list as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Junduh? Isn't it Hunduj?

[edit]

In the Arabic Wikipedia article, it shows حندج (Hunduj) and not جندح (Junduh). I noticed there are slightly more Arabic-language search results for the former spelling than the latter, whereas the reverse is true for English-language results. Is this a case of an early Western historical source getting the spelling wrong and everyone else copying it? 68.193.141.193 (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)corpho https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/امرؤ_القيس[reply]

Meh, never mind. I should have read farther down the Arabic article, and then I would have seen that historians disagree on the Junduh/Hunduj spelling issue. Whoop-de-do. 68.193.141.193 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)corpho[reply]