Talk:Qadi al-Fadil/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • Link "caliph" at first use and at the first use in the body of the article?
    • Done
  • The lead feels a bit skimpy - perhaps a bit more on his early service and switch of allegiance? As well as a bit more on his prose style?
    • Good point, done.
• Service under Fatamids:
  • link "chancery"
    • Done
  • "there were no Sunni schools in Cairo" ... not sure what significance this has for whether or not he had judicial training?
    • He was himself Sunni, so if the title 'qadi' reflected a legal training, then he must have studied in a Sunni school. Hopefully clarified in the text now.
  • Links for "al-Silafi" and "Ibn Awf"?
    • Done.
  • either "became secretary to Shawar's son Kamil" or "became the secretary of Shawar's son Kamil"
    • Fixed.
• Switch:
  • "As a partisan of Shawar, Qadi al-Fadil had originally been an opponent of Shirkuh, who had invaded Egypt on behalf of his Syrian master, Nur al-Din, to the extent of supporting Shawar's decision to turn to the Crusaders for aid against the Syrian troops." VERY twisty sentence - suggest "As a partisan of Shawar, Qadi al-Fadil had originally been an opponent of Shirkuh, who had invaded Egypt on behalf of his Syrian master, Nur al-Din. Qadi al-Fadil's support extended to backing Shawar's decision to turn to the Crusaders for aid against the Syrian troops."
    • Twisty indeed. Rephrased.
  • "but they are generally doubtful" what is the "they" being referred to here - the accounts, the background, or the events?
    • Rephrased.
  • "His account of the extent of the conspiracy" - Qadi or Umara?
    • Qadi. Clarified.
• Service under Saladin:
  • "ruler until his death" who's death? - last person mentioned is the Ayyubid ruler
    • That's who is meant. Clarified.
  • "Saladin renewed his brief to supervise" who's brief? last person mentioned is Saladin
    • Clarified.
  • "and after he left Egypt" who left Egypt? last person mentioned in Saladin's brother
    • Clarified.
  • "he was not present" who was not present? last person mentioned is Saladin's nephew
    • Clarified.
• Writings:
  • "His dīwān was published" can we have a quick definition of dīwān?
    • Glossed over, but retained the link.
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: ... any progress? Ealdgyth (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, was extremely busy IRL, will deal with this today or over the following few days. Constantine ✍ 14:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, I think I am done. Any further comments, above and beyond GA concerns? Constantine ✍ 10:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we're good here. I won't certify that it's FA-prose worthy, but it's clear and understandable. Passing this now! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)