Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Fatimid architecture

Good articleFatimid architecture has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 22, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Fatimid Caliphs built mosques in the Fatimid architecture style, such as al-Azhar Mosque (pictured), in Mahdia, Al-Mansuriya and Cairo?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fatimid architecture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at this one. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this review is going to take long. After a first read-through I am impressed, and have few quibbles.

Comments to the end of Mausoleums
  • Layout: I am told by a Wikipedia luminary that it is pointless trying to get a layout of pictures and text that fits all the sizes of screens now in use, what with hand-held devices and suchlike. But I will just point out (and leave it at that) that on my fairly standard 2011 vintage laptop there are two long gaps of white space:
    • Between the header Al-Azhar Mosque and the related text.
    • Ditto at Al-Hakim Mosque
Follow up or not as you think best.
Any better? Probably the main article template cocking that up.
  • Spelling: I am unsure whether you intend UK or US spelling. You have "storey" and "metres" but also "honor".
  • Changed to honour, not using meters!!
  • Lead: Excellent. I am not good at writing leads, and I fume enviously at such a well thought-out and well-constructed one as this.
Thankyou, although don't be too fuming so as to top my into my own piranha pool!
  • Origins
    • "a descendant in the eighth generation of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He claimed descent from the prophet's daughter" – I felt that "claimed" at the second mention of descent rather clashed with the unequivocal "a descendant" just before it.

Reworded into one sentence, claimed.

  • Palaces
    • "a curtain like the rulers of the Abbasids" – it wasn't the curtain that resembled those rulers, I assume. Perhaps "a curtain, as the rulers of the Abbasids [etc] did" – or some such. And oughtn't "Byzantine" here be "Byzantines" plural?
Done.
Oh no it isn't! Tim riley (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More anon; meanwhile I repeat, it's looking pretty good. – Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, I appreciate you talking the time. Will look into this shortly.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second and final batch
  • Mosques
    • The OED does not know the word "facade" and insists on "façade".
Done.
    • WP:OVERLINK – Byzantine blue-linked for the third time here.
Done.
  • Great Mosque of Mahdiya
    • "This is the first example of" – the first known one, presumably, or is this provable?

First known one.

  • Al-Azhar Mosque
    • "The first prayers were held in the mosque in 972, and in 989 the mosque authorities hired 35 scholars, making the mosque a teaching center for Shia theology" – Was this building a mosque, by any chance? And I see you have lapsed into American spelling of center.
No, the mosque was built in 970. A teaching centre was established in 989 at the mosque. I think this is clear? Changed center to centre.
    • "Minor improvements … significant improvements – Changes, no doubt, but who says they were improvements?
Done.
  • Al-Hakim Mosque
    • Format of date ranges: "In 1002-3" does not comply with your practice elsewhere

Done.

    • "Recently it has been reconstructed – rather vague: when was this done? Please also go through the article and replace hyphens in date ranges with en-dashes.
Since been reconstructed. Not sure of date. Can you do it for me not sure exactly what you mean?
  • Bab al-Nasr
    • unexpected and otiose blue link of gate after dozens of earlier unlinked mentions
Done
  • Bab Zuweila
    • "It is considered to be one of the major landmarks of the city" – by whom?
Removed
  • Restorations and modern mosques
Done
    • "the committee of conservation" – first we've heard of this body. The city's committee? The national committee?
I'll let Aymatth address that one
This reference [1] (page 330) gives info on the "Committee for the Conservation of Monuments of Arab Art (usually known as the Comité) was created in 1881. I have fixed this reference in the article.--Nvvchar. 14:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Hindi faith" – isn't Hindi a language, and Hindu the faith?
Hindu, quite right LOL!
    • "The result is what could be termed "Neo-Fatimid" architecture" – no doubt it could, but has it been, by a reliable source?
I'll let Aymatth address that one♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed a book reference [2] to the "Neo-Fatimid" style..--Nvvchar. 13:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Please consider. Tim riley (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    A well-illustrated article, with relevant illustrations.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Good stuff! Tim riley (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fatimid architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fatimid architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which "Cairo Mosque"?

In the second paragraph there is mention of "the Cairo Mosque"; what mosque is that? Al-Azhar I presume? This should be specified, as no building is really referred to as "the Cairo Mosque".

See: "Al-Aziz Billah (ruled 975–996) is [...] credited with at least thirteen major landmarks including the completion of the Great Palaces, the Cairo Mosque, [...]"

Casual Builder (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fatimid_architecture