Template:Did you know nominations/Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid

Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid

 * ... that Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid, the one-eyed son of Moroccan sultan Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Othman, captured Gibraltar in 1333 but fell victim to a Castilian ambush six years later?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Thổ Chu Island

Created by Prioryman (talk). Self nom at 12:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, Gibraltar-related articles are temporarily being reviewed by two individuals. In addition to the regular DYK criteria, at least one reviewer should also indicate whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review.IP addresses and Victuallers are not allowed to do the reviews.


 * Review 1:
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Everything checks out, looks good to me. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 04:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Review 2:
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Shouldn't the article be split into sections? As per MOS:LAYOUT, a lead section including the most relevant aspects of the sections below it is mandatory. The article looks like a huge lead the way it is. It would be helpful for the layout of the article to have an infobox, too. I see no problems with referencing, except for the first paragraph that is unsourced. Furthermore, I have a comprehension problem with the third paragraph; to me, the sentence ″It might have developed into a wider war backed by Malik's father Abu al-Hasan had the Zayyanid kingdom of Tlemcen (now part of Algeria) not revolted against Moroccan rule.″ seems to have a missing comma anywhere. Also, I have made a slight correction to grammar. That's all for now--Jetstreamer Talk 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've split it into sections now and reworded that third paragraph sentence you cited. I'm afraid I don't know of an infobox that would be suitable but to be honest, I'm not sure the article is long enough to merit one. The first paragraph (which was meant to be the lead, and is now more clearly thus) is left mostly uncited as per the usual convention - it just summarises the cited information elsewhere in the article. Prioryman (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg My concerns have been adressed. Good to go.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgot to point out that neither WP:COI nor WP:POV were found here.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)