Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of the Yarmuk/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Some of the notes have "verification needed" tags from 2011. Many sources listed in the bibliography are not used as intext citations. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delist. Repeated use of primary source Al-Waqidi as well. Ifly6 (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with a delist -- no longer meets GA sourcing standards. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I can work on this and get the article back to GA level in ~20 days. Is that timeline ok for everyone? Matarisvan (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Z1720, @Ifly6 and @UndercoverClassicist: Can Akram 1970, 2004 and 2009 be considered reliable sources? I personally do not think they are, if there is consensus then I can remove and replace these. Matarisvan (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Akram was a recognised military historian in addition to being a senior military officer; they may not be the best sources, but the bar for GA is low (not unreliable), and I'd suggest that the article has bigger sourcing problems at the moment. However, replacing them with works with greater scholarly impact would be a net positive. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Z1720, @Ifly6 and @UndercoverClassicist: Can Akram 1970, 2004 and 2009 be considered reliable sources? I personally do not think they are, if there is consensus then I can remove and replace these. Matarisvan (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)