Talk:Khalid ibn al-Walid/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 4 April 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):

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I corrected one minor typo. Some of the sentences are quite a mouthful and you may consider breaking them up. eg. Athamina considers purported hadiths by which Muhammad urged Muslims not to harm Khalid and prophesying that Khalid would be dealt injustices despite the enormity of his contributions to Islam and the literary narratives in which Umar expresses remorse over dismissing Khalid and that the women of Medina mourned his death en masse to be "no more than latter-day expressions of sympathy on the part of subsequent generations for the heroic character of Khalid as portrayed by Islamic tradition". Otherwise, article is in good shape, and GA-worthy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the pass! I will work on that sentence and review the article for other run-ons. I also have to review and probably revise the maps for accuracy (and consistency with the article text). Is there anything else you believe could improve the article beyond the GA criteria? I intend to nominate it as an FAC in the near future. —Al Ameer (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Not much to say. I think it should pass FAC if you can round up reviewers. Ping me when you get there. Some points with that in mind:

• Some of the references have neither ISBNs nor OCLCs, but one or both do exist.

• Some of the paragraphs are aslo really long, and could be split in two.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)