Talk:Ayyubid dynasty/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Initial comments[edit]

Looks good. Plenty of references to reliable works, scope seems good. I'm not sure about ref #1, which ideally either needs to be tidied up with more details or replaced (I can't access it myself). At current #55 and #56 are duplicates, but it's not a widespread problem. (If you could find another map or two for different times, all the better.) It certainly looks like a good contender. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #1 was removed because its presence is unnecessary. The fact they were ethnically Kurdish and Sunni Muslims by religion is covered in the Origins and Demographics section with other sources. The two duplicate refs pointed out were also taken care of. As for the maps, I will get two more for different time periods (one for after the loss of Yemen, the Hejaz, and parts of Mesopotamia in the 1240s and another for after the loss of Egypt.) --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
a) The position of Saladin is unclear in the lead. This sentence is an opportunity: "The Ayyubid family, under the brothers Ayyub and Shirkuh, originally served as soldiers for the Zengids until they gradually gained independence under Saladin." Who gained independence and from whom? I'd suggest saying "Ayyub's son" in there just to confirm.

I clarified. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

b) Good, other than above.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All good. There are two references from one author with 106 years apart, but that's not a problem. The Google books links go to individual pages with things highlighted - ideally get rid of everything past, and including, the "&pg" in the url for just the book. That's a bonus anyway, but something to think about.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Well covered. Lots of information, but well sectioned.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No really contentious issues, but legacy is positive. Were there any negative consequences of Ayyubid infrastructure? They aren't mentioned if there are.

Forgive me, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "infrastructure". Do you mean were there any negative consequences of Ayyubid rule? If so, from what I have read, there were actually very few negatives, unlike the succeeding Mamluks, or preceding Fatimids, but I guess that's because they didn't rule for long (if you count out the Hama-based dynasty, the Ayyubids really ruled from 1171 to 1260, roughly 90 years.) There are some negatives, however, such as their general maltreatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt as compared to the Fatimids and the eventual neglect of Jerusalem because of its loss of strategic importance and civil strifes between the Ayyubid rulers—although the latter is already covered in the Jerusalem article and might be too specific to include in this article. Also, from a Shia standpoint, Ayyubid reign was quite negative as it was the Ayyubids who not only ended the Shia Fatimid Caliphate, but also systematically repressed Shia Islam by constructing dozens of Sunni madrasas and disabling the use of major Shia mosques for Friday prayers. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important for this review, as long as the general good/bad balance reflects sources, and I have no reason to be;lieve it doesn't. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 12:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
All conflict seems to have been sorted, particularly since recent additions.
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):
There is a temptation to not actually describe what the image is near the top of the article (in favour of "linking" text), but the captions are relevant at least, so it's not too much of a problem.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I am assuming that some paragraphs that only have a single reference at the end of them are totally covered in most cases by that reference (rather than solely the last sentence). Well written. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 18:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you assumed right. Any paragraphs with only one citation at the end means that the citation covers all the info in that paragraph. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All's good. I think it's not far from FA status, but I'm not an expert on the copyedit criteria required. All of the prose exceeds (and in many cases, well exceeds) the requirements of Good Article status. With your knowlege of the system, maybe you'd like to review another article yourself? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 12:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I might nominate it for FAC sometime in the next few months. FYI I added a map showing the Ayyubid state right before the Mongol invasion and I will upload one that shows gradual Ayyubid expansion and major cities at the time. I must admit I've never had an interest in reviewing article, but if I see one related to the Middle East (which I know more about) than I'll be happy to review it. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]