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

Reviewer: Zanhe (talk · contribs) 18:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   The prose is clear and concise, and well written. I've fixed a few very minor grammatical issues. Earwig reports no copyright violations. However, there are contradictory statements in the "Reign" section: "a delegation of Egypt-based emirs ... arrived in al-Karak to inform an-Nasir Ahmad of Qawsun's execution", but later, Ahmad "ordered Qawsun and Altunbugha ... to be executed." -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the mistake per the source (see edit summary). The delegation informed the sultan of Qawsun's ouster. The sultan had him executed after his arrival to Egypt. --Al Ameer (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead, layout, formatting are in compliance. Not related to fiction or lists. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Yes. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   Reliable sources cited throughout. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   C. No original research:

   All conclusions or opinions are supported with reliable neutral sources. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I can't think of any important aspect that the article does not cover. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Focused:

   It is focused and does not contain excessive details. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrally written in a dispassionate tone. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status:

   The sole image is tagged with a free license. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   There's only one image, and no portrait of the man, but that's expected for an article about a Muslim ruler. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: A well written article with some minor issues that need to be fixed. Almost there. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanhe: Thanks for the review and the improvements. I addressed your point above and corrected the contradictory statement about Qawsun. Let me know if there's any other issues. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article now meets all GA criteria. Thanks for the interesting and well written article. -Zanhe (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]