Talk:Al-Azhar Mosque/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC) I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Intial comments

• I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this point. I've now completed a couple of quick readings of this article. It has the appearance of being a good well-referenced and well-illustrated article, so it aught to get through the GA process during this submission, but we shall see.

• I am now starting the detailed review. I'll be going through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point I will mostly be commenting on "problems", if any; so if I don't have much to say about a particular section or subsection that infers that I consider it to be OK. This process could take a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Name -

• Generally OK; however, it would help the reader if more dates were added; currently to find out dates it is necessary, for example to look up al-Aziz Billah and work out who was caliphate of al-Mu’izz.

• History -
  • Fatimid Caliphate & Ayyubid dynasty -

• These look OK.

• • Mamluk Sultanate -

• • I'm not sure what this is trying to say: "Followers of the Hanafi madh'hab, no restriction on the number of congregational mosques applied.[16]"

• • Province of the Ottoman Empire, French occupation -

• These look OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Muhammad Ali Dynasty and British occupation & Post-revolution -

• These look OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive article that appears to have the potential of becoming a WP:FAC.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. I have two comments above, one concerning meaning of a phrase and the other a suggestion for minor improvement; however, neither of these are sufficient to cause me to without GA until they are "fixed". Congratulations on producing a comprehensive article. Pyrotec (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)