Talk:Fatimid architecture/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this one. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this review is going to take long. After a first read-through I am impressed, and have few quibbles.


 * Comments to the end of Mausoleums:
 * Layout: I am told by a Wikipedia luminary that it is pointless trying to get a layout of pictures and text that fits all the sizes of screens now in use, what with hand-held devices and suchlike. But I will just point out (and leave it at that) that on my fairly standard 2011 vintage laptop there are two long gaps of white space:
 * Between the header Al-Azhar Mosque and the related text.
 * Ditto at Al-Hakim Mosque
 * Follow up or not as you think best.
 * Any better? Probably the main article template cocking that up.


 * Spelling: I am unsure whether you intend UK or US spelling. You have "storey" and "metres" but also "honor".
 * Changed to honour, not using meters!!
 * Lead: Excellent. I am not good at writing leads, and I fume enviously at such a well thought-out and well-constructed one as this.
 * Thankyou, although don't be too fuming so as to top my into my own piranha pool!

Reworded into one sentence, claimed.
 * Origins
 * "a descendant in the eighth generation of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He claimed descent from the prophet's daughter" – I felt that "claimed" at the second mention of descent rather clashed with the unequivocal "a descendant" just before it.
 * Palaces
 * "a curtain like the rulers of the Abbasids" – it wasn't the curtain that resembled those rulers, I assume. Perhaps "a curtain, as the rulers of the Abbasids [etc] did" – or some such. And oughtn't "Byzantine" here be "Byzantines" plural?
 * Done.
 * Oh no it isn't! Tim riley (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

More anon; meanwhile I repeat, it's looking pretty good. – Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, I appreciate you talking the time. Will look into this shortly.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Second and final batch:
 * Mosques
 * The OED does not know the word "facade" and insists on "façade".
 * Done.


 * WP:OVERLINK – Byzantine blue-linked for the third time here.
 * Done.

First known one.
 * Great Mosque of Mahdiya
 * "This is the first example of" – the first known one, presumably, or is this provable?
 * Al-Azhar Mosque
 * "The first prayers were held in the mosque in 972, and in 989 the mosque authorities hired 35 scholars, making the mosque a teaching center for Shia theology" – Was this building a mosque, by any chance? And I see you have lapsed into American spelling of center.
 * No, the mosque was built in 970. A teaching centre was established in 989 at the mosque. I think this is clear? Changed center to centre.


 * "Minor improvements … significant improvements – Changes, no doubt, but who says they were improvements?
 * Done.

Done.
 * Al-Hakim Mosque
 * Format of date ranges: "In 1002-3" does not comply with your practice elsewhere
 * "Recently it has been reconstructed – rather vague: when was this done? Please also go through the article and replace hyphens in date ranges with en-dashes.
 * Since been reconstructed. Not sure of date. Can you do it for me not sure exactly what you mean?


 * Bab al-Nasr
 * unexpected and otiose blue link of gate after dozens of earlier unlinked mentions
 * Done


 * Bab Zuweila
 * "It is considered to be one of the major landmarks of the city" – by whom?
 * Removed


 * Restorations and modern mosques
 * WP:OVERLINK Mamluk repeat link
 * Done


 * "the committee of conservation" – first we've heard of this body. The city's committee? The national committee?
 * I'll let Aymatth address that one
 * This reference (page 330) gives info on the "Committee for the Conservation of Monuments of Arab Art (usually known as the Comité) was created in 1881. I have fixed this reference in the article.-- Nvvchar . 14:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "the Hindi faith" – isn't Hindi a language, and Hindu the faith?
 * Hindu, quite right LOL!


 * "The result is what could be termed "Neo-Fatimid" architecture" – no doubt it could, but has it been, by a reliable source?
 * I'll let Aymatth address that one♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have fixed a book reference to the "Neo-Fatimid" style..-- Nvvchar . 13:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's all. Please consider. Tim riley (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * A well-illustrated article, with relevant illustrations.
 * 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * A well-illustrated article, with relevant illustrations.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Good stuff! Tim riley (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)