Talk:Sayf al-Dawla/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 03:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's a strenuous relationship? Wouldn't contentious be a better phrasing?

Don't you mean that he "was" disgraced? but being disgraced after supporting the failed usurpation of Ibn al-Mu'tazz in 908

I've read up to the Conflict with the Ikhshidids section. More later--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for taking this up! I've changed both. On "strenuous", I meant "strained", but somehow this changed on the way from by brain to my hands ;). Constantine ✍ 12:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of political initiatives did Sayf use to divide the rebellious tribesmen?
What part of Azerbaijan did his ally control? Azerbaijan isn't on any of the maps.
This is awkward: Sayf al-Dawla was deeply impregnated with this spirit. Possibly merge it with the preceeding sentence.
Fix this: against his brother's Muslim rivals over the next years
And this: he and his successors neglected constructing a fleet or paying any attention at all to the Mediterranean

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Make sure you have publisher's location for all books.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I've amended the problematic phrases, please have a look. I've also clarified the parts of Azerbaijan that Daysam controlled. On the "political initiatives", the sources I've used don't make clear what exactly it was, but it is evident that this was the time-honoured divide-and-rule approach when dealing with tribal groups. I've rephrased accordingly. Any more comments? I intend to take this as far as it can get, so any suggestions on parts that are unclear or insufficiently covered would be welcome! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good to my eyes, but then I know a little bit about this period and topic, albeit from the Byzantine side, so I'm probably not the best person to identify gaps in the coverage. You should have minimal issues at ACR and FAC, IMO. Just be sure to review other people's articles so you're not burdening the whole process.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]