Talk:Imru' al-Qais

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Imru' al-Qais/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Two found and fixed, please check that I have chosen the correct targets.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of four paragraphs for the lead.

Update: The lead has been brought into compliance with the WP:LEAD. It contains 4 paragraphs. Word for word, is shorter than the lead for the article on Napoleon Bonaparte, as well as the lead for the article on Winston Churchill-- both Good Articles.Maitham d (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Stray sentences need to be consolidated into paragraphs.

Update: The most egregious stray sentences have all been consolidated. Maitham d (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I made a number of copy-edits to correct spelling and place references after punctuation as required by the MoS.

   Prose is good enough to meet the criteria.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article appears to be adequately referenced, assume good faith for off-line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Sufficient coverage without over detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Different historians and literati will surely continue to reinterpret Imru' al-Qais' life and works from a variety of perspectives. What is certain is his importance to the Arab cultural identity and its historical narrative. Unless attributed, this is a point of view statement.

   I have marked Some[who?] have suggested that Imru' al-Qais could have been influenced by the purported Mazdakism of his grandfather, though there is little direct evidence to support this. as the use of some here is a weasel word.

Update: "Different historians..." passage has been deleted. "Some have suggested..." passage has been modified to more accurately reflect the sourcing of the information. Maitham d (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images used.

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On Hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

   The nominator has asked for extension. Hold extended until 17 March. GAN is not meant to be a lengthy process so this will be the limit. I answer to the nominator's queries, extension granted, you should be able to resolve the who question in seven days, no - images are not required (see WP:GACR for the criteria), compliance with WP:LEAD is a GA criterion. Please leave any further queries or points on this page, thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

   OK, I believe that this now passes muster, so I am happy to list as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Junduh? Isn't it Hunduj?

In the Arabic Wikipedia article, it shows حندج (Hunduj) and not جندح (Junduh). I noticed there are slightly more Arabic-language search results for the former spelling than the latter, whereas the reverse is true for English-language results. Is this a case of an early Western historical source getting the spelling wrong and everyone else copying it? 68.193.141.193 (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)corpho https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/امرؤ_القيس