Talk:Sack of Damietta (853)/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Cplakidas in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 22:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply


Most of the criteria checks out. Image is fine. Some prose comments:

  • The Sack of Damietta in 853 was a major success for the Byzantine Empire.; this seems a somewhat odd start. I get no understanding from the first line as to what this is. I feel like it should open to say it was a naval sacking.
  • Background; is it worth having a couple of lines about what the Byzantine Empire is to start this section?
    • Hmmm, I have thought about giving an introduction, but given the brevity of the article, I felt it would be out of proportion to the rest of it. Anyhow, I think most somewhat educated people have probably heard of the Byzantine Empire. Constantine 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In 852/3; did they do this across these two years? Or is it uncertain which year?
    • The latter; in both Byzantine and Muslim calendars, the years used fell on both Julian/Gregorian years, or can only be approximately dated. I saw that I have not been consistent in use, I've fixed that. --Constantine 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • reportedly of three fleets consisting of 300 ships; per WP:WEASEL, consider referencing who reported it
  • general; do you mean General?
  • for it was from Egypt that the Abbasids sent aid to Crete; this was a bit out of context in the sentence. Consider splitting it out and adding further context.
  • originally; originally when? -ly adverbs often add vagueness, consider being specific
  • and later with the; sorry this didn't make sense to me, as an extension of the sentence it doesn't associate with the first part
  • Further suggestions; consider saying who raised these options
  • The Byzantines returned and raided Damietta again in 854 and possibly in 855, when the arrival of a Byzantine fleet in Egypt was evidently anticipated by the Abbasid authorities, while Farama was attacked in 859.; the fragments in this sentence don't seem to relate in a complete sense. The middle fragment probably needs it's own sentence and context.
  • Anbasa; Anbasah?

Here are my edits. Nice article :) --Errant (chat!) 22:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Errant, thanks for taking the time, for your edits and suggestions. I've tried to address most of them, and in the process have also added some extra context. Any further suggestions for improvement are welcome! Cheers, --Constantine 10:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Great; happy to pass this as Good Article :) --Errant (chat!) 09:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot for your time and effort! Constantine 10:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply