Talk:Tulunids/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I'll be conducting the GA review of this article, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- The lead should be a summary of the entire article, and therefore does not need sources unless you are sourcing a direct quote or controversial fact.
- In the Military section, I am not sure about the need for the bulleted list. MOS discourages lists, and I really think this information could be presented well in a prose-based format. It wouldn't need to be all that much different than it is now - simply removing the bullet points and adding a bit of flow and context is all that is needed.
- Due to my concerns about the sourcing, I have not done a complete review of the prose. Once I see work (or discussion) proceeding about the sourcing, I will complete the prose review.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- I have some serious concerns about the quality and quantity of sources you are using. You seem to rely heavily on the Encyclopædia Britannica and Encyclopaedia of Islam. It is frowned upon to use generic encyclopedias (such as Britannica) for substantial parts of the sourcing in an article - in this article, for example, the entire "Demise" subsection is sourced to the Britannica article on the subject. As for the Islam encyclopedia, it is not so much the source itself I am questioning as the absolute reliance on it in this article. You have 17 seperate citations to the main article and 13 more citations to two secondary articles. That is 30 out of 38 total! While the Encyclopedia of Islam is probably a good source, there have to be other scholarly articles and books out there that address this topic. By limiting yourself to such a narrow selection, isn't it possible that you are missing a large portion of the study on this topic?
- I've added a couple of fact tags where I would like to see references.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- Are there no images, other than maps, that you could use in this article? Drawings or paintings from this era, or even artist's renditions of what they thought the people of this dynasty looked like?
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I have some serious concerns about the sourcing of this article, detailed above, as well as some issues with MOS and images. I am not failing this article outright, but this article needs additional work, especially on references, before it can reach GA status. I have this page watchlisted, so any discussion and comments can be left here, although you may also feel free to contact me on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since I have not received any reply to the above review in the week that the article has been on hold, I am going to have to fail the article. Please feel free to fix the above issues and renominate the article at GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have some serious concerns about the sourcing of this article, detailed above, as well as some issues with MOS and images. I am not failing this article outright, but this article needs additional work, especially on references, before it can reach GA status. I have this page watchlisted, so any discussion and comments can be left here, although you may also feel free to contact me on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
