Talk:Order of Assassins/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 08:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll read through in more detail and review later today. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm failing at this stage, as the article needs considerable work, as listed below. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
 * The prose needs some work.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * The list of dates should really become regular prose. The Lead needs considerable work, as it doesn't really summarise the article.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 * Multiple forms of referencing are in use.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * Large parts are unreferenced, including challengable material in Origins, Military tactics, Assassination, Downfall and aftermath, and In popular culture.
 * Some citations, e.g. that for the Timeline section, don't marry up at all with the text in the article.

(c) it contains no original research.
 * Hard to tell, as much is unreferenced.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * Yes.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Yes.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
 * Probably neutral.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * File:Asabah2.jpg, File:Crusaderstates.jpeg both need work.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Several captions end in a period (.) but are not complete sentenced.

Any further notes?
I'm trying to remove the timeline and some unecessary garbage if there is. About the reference thing we accidentally marked it noes and marked notes with references but fixed it. I'm trying to add more references. The prose thing you said that I don't know what to do because I think its well written, but if said to be incomplete I'll try to find the problems and some hints may be needed. Thanks man for doing the review. Me and some people will try to improve it. This article is important in Medieval categories especially the folklore so it deserves to be a GA and will be fixed to be GA. heck this article won a cool award.110.55.4.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Some examples of the prose issues... Some bits like "Hashashin are also made to be adept in furusiyya, or the Islamic warrior code, where they are trained in combat, disguises, and equestrianism." are in the wrong tense; some abbreviations to catch, e.g. "They didn't always assassinate their targets, however, preferring at times to try threatening an enemy into submission.", some bits that don't make much sense as written, e.g. "The military approach of the Nizari Ismaili state was largely a defensive one, with strategically chosen sites that appeared to avoid confrontation wherever possible without the loss of life.", some repetition, e.g. about innocent lives, etc. It's not appalling, but it does need a decent copyedit. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)