Talk:Sultanate of Dahlak/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 16:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	A short article covering all that is known on this topic. Very firmly referenced and nicely written. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

References.

• Please add ISBN numbers.
• Move van Donzel et al one down, to put the list in alphabetic order.
• Footnotes 4, 8, 12, 13, 14 don't link to their citations.

Prose

• "The Muslims of Dahlak were probably not overly successful in proselytizing what now constitutes Eritrea, since Christianity was still too established." This doesn't, IMO, really work as a sentence. What is "still" trying to communicate? And it doesn't seem to me to actually give a reason for the failure of proselytization.

@Gog the Mild: Fixed the references as proposed. I also tried to rephrase your quoted sentence a bit. What I want to say is that the local church was already centuries old at the time of the arrival of the Muslims, hindering easy proselytization. Historically, Islam didn't start to spread in Eritrea until the 15th/16th century, though right now I lack a concrete source I can quote that from. Will eventually include that in the article later. LeGabrie (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Fixed broken footnotes. LeGabrie (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

LeGabrie Based on what you wrote above I have had a go myself at a form of words re proselytization. If you don't like it, don't hesitate to revert. This is GA anyway. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Gog the Mild I will probably change it as soon as I have a valid source concerning the start of mass Islamization in Eritrea. Thanks again for your time. Time to get a featured article ready next. LeGabrie (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)