Talk:Fatimid navy

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 12:19, 9 January 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):

   Prose is eloquent, and complies with the specified sections of the MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Follows best practices for referencing, very clean. Spot checks conducted for refs #16 and 131, information checks out. For ref 118a, the 80 ships sent by Theodora in 1056, I could not find that information in the EI2 entry (p. 855). The information is already supported by another reference, so I recommend just removing ref 118a.

   The EI2 reference is about the wider context of diplomatic relations.

   Gotcha, not an issue then. I know footnotes are ambiguous sometimes. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very comprehensive.

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):

   The article mentions the issue with pictures before the 14th century, good job compensating with available images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I have a couple minor comments below, but nothing worth holding up the review for. Excellent article that you've clearly worked hard on, I enjoyed reading it. Pass as GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Diacritics: WP:MOSISLAM says: As a general rule, diacritical marks over and under the letters should not be used in article titles or text. You don't follow that convention (e.g. jihād, rāʾis al-usṭūl), but this discussion shows that there's not a clear consensus in favor of that rule. I'll leave it up to you if you want to leave the diacritics in or not.
  • I generally also prefer to avoid diacritics, at least in person and place-names, as they are needlessly confusing to the average reader. But for technical terms, in lieu of giving both a simplified transcription and the Arabic original when introducing them, I find that using the scientific transliteration is a good middle-way; it also helps to set technical terms apart from the rest of the content visually.
• Lamta: "Early actions" says the governor of Sicily burned Fatimid ships at "their base in Lamta", but Lamta is not mentioned as a naval base in "Organization". Is it worth adding it to the list along with Mahdiya and Tripoli?
  • Lamta was not an arsenal or permanent naval base, AFAIK. It is simply where the ships happened to be in anchorage at that point. Changed "base" to "anchorage" accordingly.
• References: In "Attempts to conquer Egypt," for the quote "is unsupported by other sources and the number seems highly inflated, I recommended putting the reference immediately after the quote. I see you have the reference at the end of the paragraph (#39), I think it would just be a little clearer if you moved it.
  • Good point, done.
• Transports: The second "Organization" sections mentions hammalat and musattahat as types of transport ships, but doesn't explain what those types are. Is there any more information on those? Could explain the terms either in that section or "Ships and armament". --Cerebellum (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No idea, unfortunately. This is still a grey area in research.

Hi Cerebellum, thanks for your time and your kind words. I've given some answers above. Also, for full disclosure, I just became aware of the publication of a book devoted to the subject, Les Fatimides et la mer (909-1171). I haven't yet had the opportunity to peruse it, so the article is liable to be expanded considerably. I do not expect that the content already in it will be invalidated, but certainly additional information on organization, ideological motivation, etc. will very likely be forthcoming. Constantine ✍ 15:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Great, I'll be excited to see how the article develops! --Cerebellum (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)