Talk:1585 Ottoman expedition against the Druze/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 13:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I will begin the review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• after which a period of quiet ensued→after which a period of peace ensued

• Levant more firmly into the Empire's structures→Levant more firmly into the empire's structures

• the rebellion of Nasir al-Din, the Hanash chieftain and the sanjak-bey of Sidon-Beirut, against Selim.[11][12] The rebellion was suppressed by Janbirdi, who arrested and executed Ibn al-Hanash→ the rebellion of Nasir al-Din, the Hanash chieftain and the sanjak-bey of Sidon-Beirut, against Selim.[11][12] The rebellion was suppressed by Janbirdi, who arrested and executed Nasir al-Din

• Wikilink vizier upon first mention and italicize it like the other Ottoman titles.

• Ibrahim Pasha used as his guide Mansur ibn Furaykh→Ibrahim Pasha used Mansur ibn Furaykh as his guide

• Since Ottoman records claim that hundreds of Druze were killed, one might assume that the number of those killed exceeded the 500 elders. So hundreds seems to be more accurate estimate than about 500 as claimed by the infobox.

• The article cites two works by Abu-Husayn, both dating to 1985. However the two sources are not distinguished in the inline citations. Add and to clarify which work is cited on each occasion.

• Can you add an ISBN to the second Abu-Husayn book?--Catlemur (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son:--Catlemur (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Catlemur: Thanks for reviewing this nomination. I have addressed the above points. As for the Abu-Husayn ISBN, oddly enough the book I have does not have an ISBN. Same with the snippet version from Google Books. There is another 1985 edition published by Syracuse University Press that does have an ISBN, but my American University of Beirut edition does not. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: --Catlemur (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)