![]() | Musa va 'Uj 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. Review: December 22, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from Musa va 'Uj appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 April 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- ... that the painting Musa va 'Uj (pictured) depicts figures from all three Abrahamic religions? Source: Robinson: "apparently an allegory of the Christian, Muhammedan, and Jewish religions, the latter represented by Moses striking the giant 'Uj" (ref 4).
Moved to mainspace by MartinPoulter (talk). Self-nominated at 14:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Musa va 'Uj; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Verified that the article is long enough, that there are no plagiarism concerns through the Copyvios tool and spotchecking, and that the hook is sourced in the article. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Musa va 'Uj/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 13:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I'll take on this review. Spotchecks will come. Frzzl talk; contribs 13:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- That was swift, passing. Thank you for an excellent article on a very interesting subject - I enjoyed a brief foray into Persian art! Frzzl talk; contribs 14:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|}y} c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Sources are reliable; eMost sources are offline, so Earwig wasn't very helpful; I couldn't really find any major problems in the sources I could access. I've added links to searchable Google Books on a couple of the refs.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|}y} c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- The article covers the main topics; it integrates background and the history of the work well
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- No problems found.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- I'd be impressed if there was an edit war on this article; it's stable and you're the main editor.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Images all have valid copyright tags; the captions are fine.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Spotchecks
editI've checked all usages of the Phillips 2020, Robinson, and the Nozourian 2019. I also looked at the Rogers "The Art of Islam" - everything seems fine to me; I'm happy to AGF on the offline sources.