This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The article is well-written, aside from a few minor grammatical errors which I corrected, and decently wikified, with an informative introduction. There are no problems with list formats, as no list other than the references has been included in the article. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
This battle-article covers all main aspects of its subject; the background, the battle itself, and the aftermath. I did not see any trivia included in any of these sections; all the information presented is noteworthy. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
No biased content displayed in this article. I'd even go so far as to say it portrays superb neutrality on this subject. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Roughly 85% of the changes made to this article at the time of this evaluation (including the creation of the article), have been made by one editor, over a course of roughly 1 and 3/4 years, and no evidence has been given that any of the remaining 15% of contributions have been made in conflict with the main editor's or each other's contributions. In short, it doesn't look like anyone's been edit-warring on this article. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
There is only one image currently used in the article, and it is suitably captioned for its use in the article's infobox. The image is created by the primary contributor to the article; issued under a valid free license. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a rather minor point, but the Arabic name given in the lead is currently "Battle of the Defile" (Arabic: وقعة الشعب Waqʿat al-Shʿib). Al-Tabari does indeed use this name twice in his description of the battle (History, v. 25: pp. 71, 89); however, he far more frequently refers to it as the "Day of the Defile" (Arabic: يوم الشعب Yawm al-Shʿib) (History, v. 25: pp. 75, 83, 84, 89, 90, 93). I quickly checked a few other primary sources; Khalifah ibn Khayyat (Tarikh 1985, p. 344) provides a description of the battle but gives no name for it; al-Baladhuri (Origins, v. 2: p. 201) makes only an indirect reference to it, and al-Ya'qubi (Tarikh, Buldan) seems to ignore it altogether. Unless Ibn A'tham uses a different name for the battle, I think that Yawm al-Shʿib should at least make an appearance in the article somewhere. Ro4444 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, IIRC, in Arabic usage, "Day of X" is fully equivalent to "Battle of X", so there's not that much difference: it does not affect the English na,e since the English-language bibliography uses "Battle" throughout. Feel free to add the Arabic name next to the one already existing in the lead, though. Constantine✍ 18:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)