Talk:Emirate of Crete/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Miyagawa     talk   12:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll give the article a read through now and post points below as I come across them.  Miyagawa     talk   12:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Links in the infobox aren't working properly. Rather than linking to Byzantine Crete, the links are going to [[File:Simple Labarum.svg]] . I'm no expert with the former countries infobox, but I think if you look at Byzantium under the Komnenos dynasty (where the same images work), I'm sure you'll be able to work it out.✅

*"this is probably later invention" - needs an "a" between probably and later. Just re-read this line, and it's fine.  Miyagawa     talk   14:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * History: Levant needs a wikilink.✅
 * Conquest of crete: Drop the "however" in the first line. Flows better without it.✅
 * Needs some sort of explanation of who W. Treadgold is in the paragraph, even if it's just "Historian W. Treadgold..."✅
 * "According to Byzantine historians, the Andalusians were already familiar with Crete, having already raided it in the past." - perhaps "having previously raided it's shores." or something similar - the already just seems out of place.✅
 * "some think that it was at the north coast" - "some historians...." otherwise inevitably someone is going to come along and stick one of those tags in there.✅

Other than those points in the first portion of the article, it all looks good. Nice concise article that you might want to look at working up to FA in the future.  Miyagawa     talk   13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for undertaking the review, and for the comments. Take your time and be as thorough as you can! I definitely intend to take this to FA eventually, once I gather some more sources to flesh it out. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Happy to mark this one up as GA. Good job. :)  Miyagawa     talk   23:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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: