Talk:Al-Adid/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2023 (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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • "in January 1169, Nur al-Din's general Shirkuh finally managed to overthrow Shawar and occupy Cairo. Although he died shortly after, he was followed by his nephew, Saladin" "Although he died shortly after" the last he mentioned was "Shawar" ... which is confusing
    • Fixed.
• Origin:
  • "The official doctrine of Isma'ilism had lost its appeal" is this an across-the-board loss of appeal or was it confined to ruling classes or the common people?
    • Good question: I'd say across the board. Isma'ilism had never been particularly popular/successful in proselytizing large masses in Egypt, and the elites had always been mixed, with Jews, Christians and Sunnis participating in power, but by al-Adid's time, the fire had gone out of it. The image conveyed by the sources is that the elites who still professed it did so with as much conviction as the CPSU professed communism under Brezhnev.
• Reign:
  • "As the French orientalist Gaston Wiet comments" ... granted, this subject area isn't my specialty (or even my hobby no matter how many of your articles I review!) but don't we generally avoid the term "orientalist" any more? I know I've read about controversies over the term... (and the whole topic of orientalizing also...)
    • To be honest, the reason I chose it was that Wiet lived and died before Edward Said's critique on Orientalism even came out. The term is disputed, but it is still the proper term, used by many institutions. I guess that lower-case 'orientalist' is still acceptable (I added a link to the proper article), unless you think that it is needlessly confusing.
• Foreign interventions:
  • "broke the dams that held back the Nile's high tide and flooded the plains" suggest rephrasing "high tide" to something that won't have connotations of seawater - perhaps "held back the Nile's cresting floodwaters"?
    • Good suggestion, done.
  • link or short explanation for "Rayhaniyya corps" so we can understand why the loss of their support is singled out?
    • Have removed it, as it is a detail.
• Shawar's second vizierate:
  • "until Nur al-Din's captured" Nur al-Din's ... what?
    • Fixed.
  • "The Syrians were pre-empted, however, by Amalric, who in October 1185" ... uh, pretty sure we're not in 1185? No clue what the correct date here should be though...
    • No idea where that came from...
  • "even before leaving, the Crusader leaders" leaving where?
    • Clarified.
  • "them military fiefs (iqta') for their upkeep" why do we have the Arabic name and link at the second mention of fiefs and not the first ("suggested that the Syrians should be given military fiefs in the Nile Delta")?
    • Merely the result of an oversight, thanks. Fixed.
  • "the Black African and Armenian troops" suggest changing the order here, to avoid the appearance that "Black" modifies both "African" and "Armenian"
    • I have removed the Armenians, as they played a minor role in the events; the affair is known as the 'Battle of the Blacks' after all...
• Death:
  • "but according to Halm, there are "no serious evidence for a violent elimination" of the caliph" shouldn't this be "but according to Halm, there IS "no serious evidence for a violent elimination" of the caliph"?
    • Indeed, fixed.
• 3b coverage - I'm going to address this, as much of the article has the subject not being an active participant - I think the article still manages to stay within bounds of 3b given that the article subject was pretty much a figurehead. It's possible that some other editor might have put more of the background information into linked articles, but the coverage now is well within editorial discretion, in my mind.
  • Thank you, that was actually one of my major points of concern and I wanted to have your view on it.
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
• Spot checks:
  • "Already in 1161, the Crusaders under Baldwin III (r. 1143–1163) had invaded Egypt and forced Tala'i to pay them tribute." is sourced to this source p. 251 mostly supports the information - the source says "The Franks had already, in 556/1161, entered Egypt and forced Ibn Ruzzik to pay them an annual tribute." I'll note that this is also ... a bit close to the source and might do with a bit more paraphrasing to avoid issues.
    • Have rephrased it.
  • "With his position secure, Saladin set about solidifying control of the administrative machinery of Egypt by apponting Syrians instead of native Egyptians to all public posts." is sourced to this source p. 252 which supports the information.
  • "Nevertheless, Saladin's position was far from secure. His forces numbered a few thousand, and he could not fully rely on the loyalty of his own commandes." is sourced to this source p. 70 (I fixed the typo in the article, by the way) which supports the information.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for taking the time and for your suggestions! I have addressed most of them. Can you please have another look? And is there anything else you would like to see improved, above and beyond GAN concerns? I hope this article will soon find its way to a FAC. Constantine ✍ 10:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)