Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Kamarja

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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Kamarja

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

An old GA of mine, this conflict between Arabs and Turks in 729 was one of the most dramatic and famous (and hence well described) battles of the Umayyad era. The article is quite complete, utilizing the description of the siege in al-Tabari as a primary source, complemented with more modern works for corroboration (Tabari's text is not always straightforward) and to highlight specific issues and provide context. This is one of a series of articles on the Muslim conquest of Transoxiana, which I hope to bring to A-class or even higher. Constantine ✍ 18:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, overall this looks pretty good to me. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

suggest adding mention of "modern Uzbekistan" in the lead or body (currently it is only mentioned in the infobox)
- Fixed. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in the infobox, the split in the Belligerents field seems uneven - this can be fixed by moving part of "Turgesh Khaganate and Transoxianian allies" to another line by using the "<br>" tags
- Fixed. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this seems potentially inconsistent: in the lead "Turgesh khaganate, along with its Soghdian allies" v. "Turgesh Khaganate and Transoxianian allies" (in the infobox)
- Fixed. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in the Sources section, Blankinship is overlinked
- Is overlinking also applicable to the Sources section? The MOS doesn't specifically mention it. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
internal headers shouldn't replicate the title of the article, e.g. "Siege of Kamarja" should probably just be "Siege"
"sent two embassies..." --> "sent two emissaries..."?
- Fixed. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, AustralianRupert! I've fixed most of the issues you raised. Other than these, was the article comprehensible, or do you think that more background information would be needed? Generally I tend to be rather brief with sections like "Aftermath", especially since in the case of this topic it is rather well covered by a whole series of articles, but my perception of what is sufficient context may well differ from the average reader's. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, it seems sufficient to me. I think you have managed to find an appropriate balance. Thanks for your efforts as always. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
- Tool checks ok - no dabs, external links work, no duplicate links, no errors with ref consolidation, image has alt text, Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase [1] (no action req')
- Image / map looks to be public domain and has the appropriate information (no action req'd).
- After reading through it I struggled to find anything to take issue with. Article looks ready for promotion to me. Anotherclown (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.