Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (636–637)/GA1
GA Review edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I realize that this is on the list for ACR at Military history, and the
Good Article list. While you've clearly done a lot of work on the article, there are serious prose issues here, and these need to be addressed before further action can be taken in either review. I've made the necessary tweaks on the lead, but will look to you to do the ones on the article itself. Please let me know when you've finished this, and I will take further action regarding passing or failing this article for GA status. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- I have fixed some pronoun related problems where jerusalem was repeatedly used. I have also tried fixing some article related issues putting 'the' and 'a' in various places where they were missing. You can check it here [1]
- As i said before that english isnt my native language and the user who helped me out in past in copy editing is now on indefinite leave so kindly help me out where ever i stuck, if you can.
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is much improved by your work, and I went through it and did some copy edits. There are three things that still need to happen though. First, the last sentence of the first paragraph under Siege is very confusing to me. It starts with the weary Muslim troops.. This needs to be reworded. Second, the last sentence of that section, and the last sentence of the following section have no attribution (no citation). Third, please read it through once more to make sure I didn't change your meaning when I changed some words. Thanks. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I still don't understand that last sentence that starts with the exhausted Muslim troops.. What is the difference between starting Siege warfare and pressing the siege? Instead of starting a siege, they press the siege? what does this mean? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is much improved by your work, and I went through it and did some copy edits. There are three things that still need to happen though. First, the last sentence of the first paragraph under Siege is very confusing to me. It starts with the weary Muslim troops.. This needs to be reworded. Second, the last sentence of that section, and the last sentence of the following section have no attribution (no citation). Third, please read it through once more to make sure I didn't change your meaning when I changed some words. Thanks. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- i have reworded it as ..and instead of the relentless assaults on the city, they decided to press the siege until the Byzantines would run short of supplies and a bloodless surrender could be negotiated.
- I think its clear this time.
- I have also provided a reference in the last sentence of the following section. While the last sentence of this section already had a reference.
- Any other issue ?
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)