Talk:Arabic Apocalypse of Peter/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: SnowFire (talk · contribs) 18:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 10:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this article. On a cursory inspection, it seems to be close to meeting the Good Article criteria already but I will start a full review shortly. simongraham (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is very high.
• It is of substantial length, with 2,777 words of readable prose.
• The lead is of appropriately length at 234 words.
• Authorship is 99.4% from the nominator with contributions from six other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.
  • Done.
• Please remove duplicate links to Arabic in the lead (it is already linked in the translation template) and Alphonse Mingana, Byzantine Empire, Cave of Treasures and Margaret Dunlop Gibson in the body.
  • Removed a link to Arabic & Cave of Treasures. MOS:DUPLINK was updated a year or so ago, and it now only recommends "at most once per major section". All of the links in the body to Mingana & Gibson are in different sections, so I believe they don't qualify as problems by the modern DUPLINK. Same with Byzantine Empire (and the second link is a high-value link IMO). Yes, I know the "Highlight Duplicate Links" script still shows them as dupes, but the actual standard is a bit less strict now.

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and seems to be at an appropriate level for a broad audience.
   • I believe the commas in "The first part introduces and frames the work, and includes an extensive retelling of the Cave of Treasures" and "the Crusaders coming into contact with the book was not a fortuitous accident, but rather an intentional act of the local Egyptian Christian population." are superfluous. Please check for other similar instances.
     • They are superfluous in the sense that it's a valid stylistic choice to not include them, but it is also a valid stylistic choice to include them. Just one of those things that writers differ on. I've removed the second comma, but I've kept the first one because there are two "and"s in the sentence, and I want to make clear that the first "and" is a lesser and with " introduces and frames the work" as one thought. The comma sets that half off from the second half. Without the comma, a reader might be briefly confused with the multiple ands and misread the intended sentence separation. I did another read-through and see some commas that again, could be hypothetically pulled, but I think the sentences are better with them.
       • Seems fair.
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • Suggest rewording "Despite not referring to it by name, the work is still clearly condemning Islam as a false religion that Christians must separate themselves from." and "people of the South (ahl al-tayman) seems to be to the Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula". Please check the remainder of the text for MOS:WTW and similar words. Please also review MOS:NOTE against the text.
     • Adjusted a "noted." I agree that "clearly" is a word to use with caution, but the intent was expressing the idea that "sure, it's not called Islam, but... it's definitely Islam, there's no scholarly doubt." Anyway, rephrased it to remove the "clearly" and reduce repetition. What's the problem with the "people from the South" bit? "Seems" is a weak word, but I think it's fair in this case as reflecting that the mention in the text is somewhat vague.
       • I agree.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.
   • Please add a trans-title in English for Bausi 1992 and Grébaut's titles.
     • Done, although I left some parts untranslated due to not wanting the title to look silly (i.e. Qalēmenṭos and Clemente are both "Clement" anglicized, but in Ethiopic / Italian; translating them both would make the title look odd.). I'm a bit skeptical on Grébaut... I think the English meaning is obvious, and that's a long footnote. Still, added.
       • As a person that does not read Ethiopic, that is helpful. Thank you.
   • References are given by page range. Suggest using the format with a separate list of citations and bibliography as this makes it easier to see what page is being referred to.
     • If this is only a suggestion, I'd prefer to pass on this. Even at the FA level, it's common to cite journal articles / monographs in monograph collections as a unity, and most of the articles aren't that long. I suppose there's a case to separate out Roggema 2006 as the longest one at 19 pages and perhaps Gryperou 2006 as 16 pages, but would kind of prefer not to. That said, if you feel strongly on this, I can give it a shot. (Unfortunately, Brill access is currently down on the Wikipedia Library, so this would mean grabbing the book from the physical library.)
       • That seems reasonable.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Sources are academic journals and books.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 9.1% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is unlikely. The closest phrasing are the titles of works mentioned in the text.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article covers main aspects of the work's history and context as well as its content.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article goes into an appropriate level of detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems balanced.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The image has appropriate PD tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The image is appropriate.

@SnowFire: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Thanks for the review & catches. I've made some modifications per your comments above. Asked a question back on the citation style request above. SnowFire (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire: That all seems reasonable. I feel that the citation is compatible with the criteria, so that is fine too. Congratulations. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.