Talk:Sa'd al-Dawla/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DCI2026 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I will be reviewing this article as well as the nominator's other article regarding an al-Dawla. dci | TALK 20:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: I will be reviewing this article in the same way I've been reviewing Nasir al-Dawla. dci | TALK 01:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Prose and structure (criteria 1a and 1b)

Early years

• Is there a name for the mother, even a possible one? dci | TALK 01:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't really have a problem with this, just a question –you say that his accession was unopposed, yet almost as soon as he took power he faced rebellions, etc. Did everyone pretend to welcome him warmly until he actually arrived in Aleppo? dci | TALK 01:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The accession was not opposed in the sense that no one else came forward to claim his father's emirate, but it is clear that the various strongmen of the Hamdanid state, which had been in near-anarchy during the last years of Sayf al-Dawla's reign, did not intend to give up their power and take orders from a child. Most states of the period suffered from strong centrifugal tendencies when they lacked a strong central government. Constantine ✍ 05:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Recovery of Aleppo, etc.

• Several times in this article, as well as in Nasir al-Dawla, you use phrases like "in 993-994". Unless you mean in either 993 or 994, I would suggest using "from 993 to 994" instead; it flows more easily. This isn't really GA stuff, though, so it's not a big deal. dci | TALK 01:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is very little else to mention; this article should pass. I'll have a checklist up within a day or two. dci | TALK 01:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Excellently written article. There are very few issues with the prose, and those few are nothing more than superficial things.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   As I have said above, it's really a well-done piece. dci | TALK 01:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)