Talk:Musa va 'Uj

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Musa va 'Uj

• ... that the painting Musa va 'Uj (pictured) depicts figures from all three Abrahamic religions? Source: Robinson: "apparently an allegory of the Christian, Muhammedan, and Jewish religions, the latter represented by Moses striking the giant 'Uj" (ref 4).
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph (art model)

Moved to mainspace by MartinPoulter (talk). Self-nominated at 14:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Musa va 'Uj; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Verified that the article is long enough, that there are no plagiarism concerns through the Copyvios tool and spotchecking, and that the hook is sourced in the article. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 13:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take on this review. Spotchecks will come.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  13:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That was swift, passing. Thank you for an excellent article on a very interesting subject - I enjoyed a brief foray into Persian art!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  14:12, 22 December 2023 (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):

   Very well written indeed; refs are well formatted. My only request would be to link folio in "Physical description" strike that, it's so minor that I've done it.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|}y} c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are reliable; eMost sources are offline, so Earwig wasn't very helpful; I couldn't really find any major problems in the sources I could access. I've added links to searchable Google Books on a couple of the refs.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers the main topics; it integrates background and the history of the work well

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems found.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I'd be impressed if there was an edit war on this article; it's stable and you're the main editor.

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

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

   Images all have valid copyright tags; the captions are fine.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Spotchecks

I've checked all usages of the Phillips 2020, Robinson, and the Nozourian 2019. I also looked at the Rogers "The Art of Islam" - everything seems fine to me; I'm happy to AGF on the offline sources.

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.