Talk:Al-Mundhir III ibn al-Harith/GA1

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

I plan on reviewing this article within the next week... no later than Saturday, but it depends on how my schedule works out.

Reviewer: Canadian   Paul  21:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Some points:


 * 1) The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD so that, at the very least, it touches upon facts from all sections of the article. Currently, for example, there's nothing in there about "Succession and early career"✅
 * 2) Although not strictly required for a GA pass, could you add alt text to the image per Alternative text for images?
 * 3) You should never begin a section with a pronoun, let alone the first section of the article. Remember that the lead cannot mention facts that are not in the body of the article and the article cannot be written on the assumption that someone has read the lead.✅
 * 4) Along the same line of reasoning, important topics that are wikilinked in the lead should also be wikilinked on their first occurrence in the body of the article.✅
 * 5) The connection between the first two sentences is in "Succession and early career" is confusing. First you're talking about who his father was and who his father ruled. In the next sentence, the reference to "there" is unclear. Simplifying the sentence, I get "X was the son of Y who was the ruler of Tribe A and the supreme leader of Tribe B who lived in Place Q. In Place Q, Tribe A faced Tribe C." I get it when I simplify it, but I think that this section in general needs a little more context - it jumps into the subject matter too quickly and perhaps fails to state the obvious. Even reading the intro didn't help me here.✅
 * 6) Same section, second paragraph "Mundhir succeeded his father upon his death in late 569" - pronoun confusion here makes it sound like he succeed his father after his own death.✅
 * 7) Same paragraph, "suffered a crushing defeat" seems a little POV, but can probably stay if that's how it is described in the sources. If possible, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it may be better to give factual details (ie. the Lakhmids lost 100,000 soldiers) than to qualitatively describe the nature of the defeat. But, again, it depends on the nature of the source.✅
 * 8) Same problem in the "Return to Byzantine allegiance" section, first paragraph: "the Lakhmid capital and at the time the Arab world's greatest city". Is this what is said in the source? If so, what makes it the "greatest" city? Seems like a subjective assessment to me, no matter what the reference says. Wealthiest, most powerful (in terms of army size), most populous, most technologically advanced etc. could all be reasons to consider a city the "greatest", but what makes the wealthiest city "greater" than the most populous? In other words, rather than using a subjective measure, something more objective should be used here.✅
 * 9) Same section, second paragraph: "In 580, Mundhir was again invited by Emperor Tiberius II (r. 578–582) to visit the capital." When was the first time he was invited by Tiberius II?✅
 * 10) Same paragraph: "On this occasion, among a multitude of other gifts, he was also presented with a royal crown, instead of the more simpler coronet or diadem he had been presented before." Aside from "more simpler" not existing, one of the "presented"s needs to be changed to another verb to avoid the sentence from becoming repetitive.✅
 * 11) Same section, fourth paragraph: "Immediately he set out to meet them, engaged their force and defeated it comprehensively, before going on to capture the enemy camp." Here you are using both singular ("defeated it") and plural ("set out to meet them") pronouns to describe "force".✅
 * 12) Same section, second paragraph: "At any rate" is horribly unencyclopedic in tone and, moreover, unnecessary here. Same with "indeed".✅
 * 13) Same paragraph: "according to I. Shahîd,". Who is I. Shahid and why should I care about his opinion? If his opinion is going to be used as "fact" in the article, it should be made clear to the reader why his analysis is valuable here, even if it's just adding something like "author of several books on blah blah blah" so that we can distinguish it from Joe Average's opinion.✅
 * 14) Same section, third paragraph: "For two years the Ghassanid army launched raids into the Byzantine provinces from their bases in the desert, even defeating and killing the Byzantine dux of Arabiain a battle at Bostra." Is there a word missing here?

To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  04:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Paul and thanks for the thorough review! I've (hopefully) fixed most of the style problems, and will do the rest in the next few days along with a general review of the article (I was a bit busy in RL the past few days). On point 14, no, I don't think so. There was a typo there, but no missing word. Cheers,Constantine  ✍  18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Just drop a message on my talk page when you want me to look over the article again! Canadian   Paul  04:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good now! There are a few minor punctuation/grammatical questions, and the image still needs the alt text, but these are issues for FA, not GA, so I am going to pass the article now. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian   Paul  05:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)