Talk:Amr ibn al-As/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CPA-5 (talk · contribs) 12:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Amr ibn al-As al-Sahmi (Arabic: عمرو بن العاص‎ Unlink Arabic.

Not sure how to unlink it as it is in the standard "lang-ar" template.

• Link Medina in the lead.

Done.

• appointed Amr the governor of Oman and he remained Unlink the current country Oman.

Done. Linked History of Oman instead if that works.

• See a lot of "Afterward"s maybe trim 4 of them.

Done.

• eastern bank of the Nile River and at the head Unlink the Nile because of common term.

Done.

• stretching 5–6 kilometers (3.1–3.7 mi) along the Nile and 1–2 kilometers (0.62–1.24 mi) inland to the east The numbers are a little bit too specific.

Which ones—the kilometers or the miles or both? Al Ameer (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• The caliph and Amr engaged in a number The Caliph.
• The caliph persuaded them to withdraw Same as above.
• Amr was permitted by the caliph to retain personally Same as above.

Done for all 3 and more.

• continuously ruled by Muslims until the present day --> "continuously ruled by Muslims until the present-day"

Done.

• his was followed with westward advances Replace "with" with "by".

Done.

• At the head of 4,000 cavalry and with no siege engines Replace "cavalry" with the "cavalries".

Done.

• this on the basis that no body of water Merge "no body".

In this case "body" is referring to "body of water"; I don't think "nobody" would make sense here, correct?

• The Egytpian Arab tradition holds that Amr was Typo of Egyptian.

Done.

• westward advances by Amr as far as Tripoli --> "westward advances by Amr as far as Tripoli, Lebannon" Because there are two popular Tripolis.

It was the Tripoli of Libya but I see your point. Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

• "Umar (r. 634–644)" Maybe replace 634 with 640?

Is the reign for monarchs listed in the infobox about the total term of the monarch or only the part of the term in which the article subject held office under the particular monarch? --Al Ameer (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Al Ameer son: I think the second one because it is a little bit odd to look at that the years when he doesn't take office are included in the governor part. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• @CPA-5: Done.

• "Rashidun Caliphate (632–658) Muhammad (629–632)" Maybe place the years bellow the allegiances.

Let me know if I did this correctly. Al Ameer (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Normally battles/wars should be from oldest (above) to newest (below) the infobox.

Done.

Images

• Looks good to me.

Sources

• Blakely's source needs a JSTOR code. Also no location and publisher?

Done.

• Google Books claim that the published year is 2015, not 2016 at Elad's book?

This is a mistake by Google Books, inside the book itself it says "Copyright 2016". Al Ameer (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Google Books' URL of Hawting's book is dead.

Fixed.

• Remove October in Hinds' date. It also needs a JSTOR code and remove the link because we should only link Google Books' URLs if they have a preview.

Added the code, rmved url. Usually the month is kept for a journal article, no?

• Lecker 1989's source should have a source code I found a JSTOR and an OCLC code.

Done.

• Remove the month in Raisuddin's year.

See above response.

• Scanlon needs a JSTOR code, unlink the URL and remove the month in the year.

Same as above, though URL/JSTOR code done.

• The Google Books' URL of McDonald is dead.

Fixed. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll do this later. Stay stone. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Phew that's everything that I could find. The source review too me hours I even didn't know you could have a divorce in the Islam especially at that time. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: God bless you man. Sorry for my delay. I sincerely appreciate the time you've given this review (and yes divorce was allowed from the get-go). I addressed/responded to your points above. Please let me know your thoughts or if there's anything else that needs to be done. I'll be shooting for FA in the near future. Al Ameer (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'll pass it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Egypt has remained under Muslim rule since

I'd reword this to "Egypt has remained Muslim majority since" to account for European and modern governments. Hcobb (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hcobb: I meant to respond to this but it slipped. The language used was from the source, but I understand that technically there were brief periods of European rule and the modern government is not an “Islamic” government. Perhaps “dominated by Muslims” is slightly more accurate, but maybe not the best wording either. For now I have removed it altogether, because the wording you proposed also does not work: Egypt was not Muslim majority until some centuries after the conquest. —-Al Ameer (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Egypt has remained Muslim dominated ever since? Hcobb (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hcobb: It would be more accurate than Muslim majority since that only became the case centuries after the conquest, but I’m not really proposing this wording either. It might just be better to drop it altogether. —Al Ameer (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)