Talk:Fatimid architecture/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this one. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this review is going to take long. After a first read-through I am impressed, and have few quibbles.

Comments to the end of Mausoleums

• Layout: I am told by a Wikipedia luminary that it is pointless trying to get a layout of pictures and text that fits all the sizes of screens now in use, what with hand-held devices and suchlike. But I will just point out (and leave it at that) that on my fairly standard 2011 vintage laptop there are two long gaps of white space:
  • Between the header Al-Azhar Mosque and the related text.
  • Ditto at Al-Hakim Mosque

Follow up or not as you think best.

Any better? Probably the main article template cocking that up.

• Spelling: I am unsure whether you intend UK or US spelling. You have "storey" and "metres" but also "honor".
• Changed to honour, not using meters!!
• Lead: Excellent. I am not good at writing leads, and I fume enviously at such a well thought-out and well-constructed one as this.

Thankyou, although don't be too fuming so as to top my into my own piranha pool!

• Origins
  • "a descendant in the eighth generation of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He claimed descent from the prophet's daughter" – I felt that "claimed" at the second mention of descent rather clashed with the unequivocal "a descendant" just before it.

Reworded into one sentence, claimed.

• Palaces
  • "a curtain like the rulers of the Abbasids" – it wasn't the curtain that resembled those rulers, I assume. Perhaps "a curtain, as the rulers of the Abbasids [etc] did" – or some such. And oughtn't "Byzantine" here be "Byzantines" plural?

Done.

Oh no it isn't! Tim riley (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

More anon; meanwhile I repeat, it's looking pretty good. – Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, I appreciate you talking the time. Will look into this shortly.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Second and final batch

• Mosques
  • The OED does not know the word "facade" and insists on "façade".

Done.

• • WP:OVERLINK – Byzantine blue-linked for the third time here.

Done.

• Great Mosque of Mahdiya
  • "This is the first example of" – the first known one, presumably, or is this provable?

First known one.

• Al-Azhar Mosque
  • "The first prayers were held in the mosque in 972, and in 989 the mosque authorities hired 35 scholars, making the mosque a teaching center for Shia theology" – Was this building a mosque, by any chance? And I see you have lapsed into American spelling of center.

No, the mosque was built in 970. A teaching centre was established in 989 at the mosque. I think this is clear? Changed center to centre.

• • "Minor improvements … significant improvements – Changes, no doubt, but who says they were improvements?

Done.

• Al-Hakim Mosque
  • Format of date ranges: "In 1002-3" does not comply with your practice elsewhere

Done.

• • "Recently it has been reconstructed – rather vague: when was this done? Please also go through the article and replace hyphens in date ranges with en-dashes.

Since been reconstructed. Not sure of date. Can you do it for me not sure exactly what you mean?

• Bab al-Nasr
  • unexpected and otiose blue link of gate after dozens of earlier unlinked mentions

Done

• Bab Zuweila
  • "It is considered to be one of the major landmarks of the city" – by whom?

Removed

• Restorations and modern mosques
  • WP:OVERLINK Mamluk repeat link

Done

• • "the committee of conservation" – first we've heard of this body. The city's committee? The national committee?

I'll let Aymatth address that one

This reference [1] (page 330) gives info on the "Committee for the Conservation of Monuments of Arab Art (usually known as the Comité) was created in 1881. I have fixed this reference in the article.--Nvvchar. 14:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "the Hindi faith" – isn't Hindi a language, and Hindu the faith?

Hindu, quite right LOL!

• • "The result is what could be termed "Neo-Fatimid" architecture" – no doubt it could, but has it been, by a reliable source?

I'll let Aymatth address that one♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed a book reference [2] to the "Neo-Fatimid" style..--Nvvchar. 13:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's all. Please consider. Tim riley (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   A well-illustrated article, with relevant illustrations.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good stuff! Tim riley (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)