Talk:Kuwait Red Fort

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Kuwait (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Fortifications / Middle East Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Article shortcomings[edit]

This article had inappropriate honorifics (MOS:HONORIFIC), a great many repeated links (WP:REPEATLINK), and uses very long personal titles repeatedly and unnecessarily (e.g., giving fullest possible titles, dates of rulers, and cause of death ("KIA") every time they are mentioned (e.g. "the 9th Ruler of Kuwait H.H. Sheikh Salim Al-Mubarak Al-Sabah (reign: 1917–1921)"; "cavalry commander H.E. Sheikh Jaber Abdullah II Al-Sabah II Al-Sabah (1860–1920) †"). These are mostly issues of form. The text is supported by a single source close to its subject, which casts its impartiality into doubt, an issue of substance. Some of these issues have been partially addressed, but they all need resolving properly. Pol098 (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC) I have corrected some of these things, but the faulty text has been reinstated. The article's single source was referenced separately, identically, 17 times; I have corrected that twice, combining them into a single named reference cited 17 times, and it has been replaced by the long list of identical references twice. Others have intervened here, for example, splitting the long list into two columns, slightly better, but not as good as combining them all. Pol098 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]