Talk:Battle of al-Mada'in/GA1

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias talk 11:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Background
 * Foreign language terms, such as "amir al-umara" need to use the template, not just plain italics, per MOS:LANG.
 * think I got this-- first time using lang so pls check to make sure this is right


 * "with the laqab of Nasir al-Dawla ("Defender of the Dynasty")." This could do with explanation inline. I had no idea at all what it meant until I followed the wikilink for laqab.
 * added "laqab (honorific epithet) of Nasir al-Dawla"


 * "Many of the Turkish officers in Ibn Ra'iq's employ who had previously defected to the Baridis, such as Tuzun, plotted against the Baridi governor, Abu Abdallah's younger brother Abu'l-Husayn al-Baridi. when this was betrayed.." Either "when" should be capitalised, or this needs an alternative change.
 * capitalised "When"


 * Battle
 * What is an "emir"?
 * It's a title of high office (i.e. a king), in this case the leader of Aleppo. I've linked, but the term is widely used across Arab countries, so I don't think it need explanation.


 * Aftermath
 * "..dismayed at these developments and exposed being far from his real power-base.." I'm not sure "being" is needed in this sentence, to my mind it would work better without it.
 * removed


 * "..to the Hamdanids for aid: and army under.." Typo: should be "an army".
 * yup, fixed


 * "..of 3.6 million dirhams." Is there a wikilink for dirhams, and anything to give us an idea of what sort of value this had?
 * linked


 * "..and inaugurated a century Buyid rule over Baghdad." Feels like it is missing a word: "a century of Buyid rule"?
 * added


 * Lead
 * This is probably my ignorance: I assume that al-Mada'in is the location on the map labelled 'Mada'in'? If so, why the difference?
 * seems to be referred to generally as al-Mada'in, but sometimes Mada'in Kisra (1, 2) more than that I can't tell you


 * I think it would be worth clarifying how far the battle was from Baghdad itself, given possession of that city is listed as the purpose of the battle.
 * added


 * Could you add who possessed Baghdad at the time of the battle (the Hamdanids, if I've read it right?)
 * That's how I read it too


 * Images
 * Both images are appropriately tagged, have relevant captions. Consider adding alt text, but it isn't a requirement for GA.


 * Referencing
 * The article is well-referenced in a consistent style.
 * A few spot checks show no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and the article accurately reproduces the information provided in the sources.
 * Does the first source, "Amedroz & Margoliouth 1921" have an OCLC number we can add?
 * added

Overall, a really good article, well-written and interesting. Plenty of context is provided, but it doesn't go over the top with excessive detail on tertiary information. Nice work. Harrias talk 11:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking this up. I made some fixes to the templates, but otherwise this is all good. Cheers!  Harrias  talk 18:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A delayed thank you to both Harrias  for reviewing this and Eddie891 for taking this on in my absence. Much appreciated! Constantine   ✍  16:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)