Talk:Siege of Baghdad/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 18:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * There are a few examples where names beginning with "al-" are not capitalized when they begin a sentence, such as "al-Musta'sim's reply to Hulegu's letter called the Mongol leader young and ignorant, and presented himself as able to summon armies from all of Islam." & " al-Mansur believed that the new Abbasid Caliphate needed a new capital city," - Is this an accepted quirk of capitalization that I'm not familiar with or a typo?
 * I'd thought it was accepted, but according to this entry it is not, so I've edited the article . Thanks for the review! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for clarifying. Great work! sawyer  * he/they *  talk  02:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * Citations look great, all from scholarly & reputable sources. Nice work condensing the sfns into single refs!
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran copyvio detector, no issues.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * As someone unknowledgeable on both military & Mongol history, I found this an interesting & accessible read!
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Great selection of images!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just the one minor issue needs resolving, and it's an easy pass! Excellent work!
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Great selection of images!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just the one minor issue needs resolving, and it's an easy pass! Excellent work!
 * Just the one minor issue needs resolving, and it's an easy pass! Excellent work!


 * Thanks for picking this up, ! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem! It's a very interesting topic, and I know we both want some WikiCup points haha. I'll try to get through it within a few days. sawyer  * he/they *  talk  19:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29 quick ping - I've put all the grades in & there's only one tiny thing I'd like clarification on! sawyer  * he/they *  talk  01:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)