Talk:Battle of the Indus/GA1

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

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 20:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this article. PizzaKing13  ¡Hablame!  20:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Mention that the image was produced between 1596–1600 ✅
 * Malik Khan is mentioned in the infobox but not the body. The body mentions Amin Malik, Akhash Malik, and Temur Malik. Amin and Temur should be mentioned in the infobox with after their names ✅

Background

 * Remove "disciplined" ✅
 * Link Shah Muhammad ✅
 * Why did Shah Muhammad doubt his commanders' loyalty?
 * He seems to have been quite a suspicious man. I don't think I can really expand on that in the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove the comma after "until April" ✅
 * Replace the emdash between 30,000 and 40,000 and "to" ✅
 * Replace "men" with "man" ✅
 * Link Uzlaq-Shah ❌ doesn't have an article
 * "Ogedei" → "Ögedei" ✅
 * "shook off" → "evaded" ✅
 * "flocked to him" → "joined him" ✅

Battle of Parwan and prelude

 * Link Saif al-Din Ighrak ❌ doesn't have an article
 * "Jalal ad-Din" and "Jalal ad Din" → "Jalal al-Din" ✅
 * Remove "However," at the start of the last paragraph ✅
 * "Ogedai" → "Ögedei" ✅
 * Delink Ögedei and Chagatai ✅
 * "their foes" → "Jalal al-Din's forces" ✅

Battle

 * Mention in the image caption that it was produced in the 1540s ✅
 * "At dawn" mention the date ✅
 * Remove the comma after "defensive position" ✅
 * "Ogedai" → "Ögedei" ✅
 * "Even though" → "Although" ✅
 * "fought on" → "continued to fight" ✅
 * List a source for Note b regarding the alternate translation.
 * I can't find one, so it has been deleted. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath

 * Is there an article about the state he established in India? ❌ doesn't have an article
 * "Jalal" → "Jalal al-Din" ✅
 * "Ogedai" → "Ögedei" ✅
 * "1223-4" → "1223–4" ✅
 * Source for the last sentence in the first paragraph? ✅

Overall

 * Sources are ok
 * Neutral
 * No war edits
 * Focused and broad
 * Images properly licensed

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:


 * I've left some comments for the review. PizzaKing13   ¡Hablame!  20:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * replies above. Thanks for the review! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good. I'll pass this article. PizzaKing13   ¡Hablame!  19:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)