Talk:Al-Azhar Mosque/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC) I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Intial comments

 * I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this point. I've now completed a couple of quick readings of this article. It has the appearance of being a good well-referenced and well-illustrated article, so it aught to get through the GA process during this submission, but we shall see.


 * I am now starting the detailed review. I'll be going through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point I will mostly be commenting on "problems", if any; so if I don't have much to say about a particular section or subsection that infers that I consider it to be OK. This process could take a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Name -
 * Generally OK; however, it would help the reader if more dates were added; currently to find out dates it is necessary, for example to look up al-Aziz Billah and work out who was caliphate of al-Mu’izz.


 * History -
 * Fatimid Caliphate & Ayyubid dynasty -
 * These look OK.


 * Mamluk Sultanate -
 * I'm not sure what this is trying to say: "Followers of the Hanafi madh'hab, no restriction on the number of congregational mosques applied.[16]"


 * Province of the Ottoman Empire, French occupation -
 * These look OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Muhammad Ali Dynasty and British occupation & Post-revolution -
 * These look OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall 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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. I have two comments above, one concerning meaning of a phrase and the other a suggestion for minor improvement; however, neither of these are sufficient to cause me to without GA until they are "fixed". Congratulations on producing a comprehensive article. Pyrotec (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)