Talk:Al-Mu'tazz

Not very encyclepedic

This page doesn't seem very 'encyclopedic'. I'm a bit of a wikipedia newbie so I don't what the right word is or if it's necessary, but it doesn't seem to fit in with the usual style of writing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikeus (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Al-Mu'tazz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 23:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Cplakidas, I have begun to engage in a Good Article review for this GA candidate article. Shortly before beginning this review, I performed a minor edit using Wikipedia:AutoEd. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Cplakidas, I've completed my review of this very well-written article and I have illustrated this review above in the GAR template. I find that it exceeds the criteria for Good Article status! Prior to passing this article, I did have a few comments and questions that I have provided below for you to address at your earliest convenience. Once these have been addressed, this article will pass to GA status! Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough research and writing on this topic! Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Lede

• Per the MoS Lead guidance, this article's lead paragraph succinctly summarizes the most important points covered in an article.
• In the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede, would it flow better if it read, "Originally named as one of three heirs of his father al-Mutawakkil..."? Readers may wonder what is meant by "second heir."

• Rephrased as "named as the second in line of three heirs". Hopefully clearer now.

• Should "caliphate" be capitalized in the second sentence in the second paragraph of the lede?

• "raised to the caliphate" is like "raised to the kingship", describing the office of caliph, rather than the state.

• You may want to consider wiki-linking lower Iraq to Geography_of_Iraq#Lower_Mesopotamia at the end of the last sentence of the final paragraph of the lede.

• Good suggestion, but I found a slightly better link, Lower Mesopotamia

• File:Dinar of al-Mu'tazz, AH 253.jpg is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license and is free to use in this article.
• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the prose below, those references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Early life

• Could the first sentence/paragraph be merged with the second paragraph?

• Sure, done. I had left it like this in the expectation I would find some info on his early life, but no luck so far.

• File:Abbasids Ninth Century.svg has been released to the public domain and is acceptable for use here.
• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Caliphate

• File:Al-Mu'tazz Sends Gifts to Abdulla ibn Abdulla, from the Tarikh-i Alfi manuscript, Tarikh-i-Alfi, c. 1592-94.jpg uses the PD-Art template; however, the PD-Art template does not have license parameter. Would you be able to please specify why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States?

• Done. As a late 16th-century Mughal work, per the PD-Art explanation, it is PD both in its country of origin (which strictly speaking does not exist any more) as well as in the US.

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Legacy

• This section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Cplakidas, thank you again for your tremendous contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot West Virginian for taking the time to review this, and for your suggestions. If there are any spots where you think further improvements might be made, above and beyond GA criteria, e.g. to improve understandability or provide additional background for the layman, then please don't hesitate to add them here. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 07:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Cplakidas, thank you tremendously for your very timely responses to my comments above! The article in its current form is ready to proceed to Good Article status, but per your request, I did have some additional suggestions for understandability, context, and clarity.

• At the end of the first paragraph, it may help to give a brief description of the term "Anarchy at Samarra" so that unfamiliar readers won't feel the need to have to click on it and see what it is before proceeding. Perhaps you can say something as brief as "..., a period of extreme internal instability within the Caliphate." or "...during a period of extreme instability known as the "Anarchy at Samarra." Again, this is merely a suggestion.
• An excellent point. Done.
• In the second paragraph of the "Early life" section, it may also assist the reader by rephrasing this sentence as, "which his father's advisor al-Fath and the vizier Ubayd Allah..." I found myself having to refer back to the first paragraph to refresh my memory on who al-Fath and Ubayd Allah were.
• Done.
• Other than these aforementioned suggestions and comments, I have no other suggestions for improvement; however, should I find anything in the meantime, I will send you a message on your page. Once you've taken a moment to address these comments, I will proceed with moving this article to GA status! Once again Cplakidas, I have long enjoyed your articles on Byzantine and Arab leaders, and I look forward to your next articles! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, once again, for your time and constructive suggestions, West Virginian , as well as your kind words. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 13:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Cplakidas, job well done! I hereby certify this article as a Good Article! Thank you for your continued phenomenal contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)