Talk:Buhturids

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Buhturids/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 13:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Will take this. Aintabli (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All sources come from well-known publishers, publications, and scholars.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One source is in the public domain due to its age. The rest are derivations or original works of various editors, mostly the nominator themselves, who provided sources for their work.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Images

This picture appears to be a derivation of the original, which doesn't lack much. The problem is the first picture is in Spanish, and if the resolution of the original is a problem, this version is a little bit better. Aintabli (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son, just noticed that you have been inactive for some time. If you get to see this, let me know when you will be more available for the review. Aintabli (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Aintabli. Thanks for taking up this review. I have been inactive lately, but will be available to address your comments in the next few days. Regards —Al Ameer (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aintabli: probably appropriate to fail this now. Nom hasn't been active for over a month and hasn't addressed the comments as promised. Willbb234 00:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You're right. Although I've only pointed out a single, somewhat minor issue, Al Ameer son did not edit Wikipedia for 2 weeks after he said he would address my comments in the next few days, editing once on 20 August and being inactive ever since. Bearing that in mind, I will fail this review but encourage its renomination. Aintabli (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Although part of the confederation fled to Byzantine Anatolia, they primarily remained in their dwelling places around Aleppo and Qinnasrin (Chalcis) in the northern Levant and eventually allied with the Levant-based Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) while largely retaining their Christian faith. After the execution of their preeminent chieftain Layth ibn Mahatta by the Iraq-based Abbasid caliph al-Mahdi (r. 775–785) for refusing to embrace Islam, the tribe converted and their churches were destroyed. Verified. Aintabli (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)