Talk:Al Jalali Fort

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sabrebd (talk · contribs) 20:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I will be starting the review of this article over the next few days.--SabreBD (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This article looks in very good shape, but I will give it a thorough lead.--SabreBD (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article is in pretty good shape, with very few issues. I made a few minor edits and most of the minor points have been cleaned up in recent edits. There a few other things:

In the list of sources the details for Brebbia need to indicate the author of the chapter and its title. This may be true for some of the other books.

The only major issue I can see is the Structure and exhibits section. I would have anticipated a bit more on the historic architecture of the fort, even if little survives now, perhaps pointing to features and how it fits into local (or Portuguese) styles. That is, if this is available.--SabreBD (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• I fixed the Brebbia source description - good catch. The other sources are single-author, so are o.k.. The lack of description of the physical fort is annoying, but I think this article scrapes the barrel of what is available online. My guess is that there has never been any archaeological examination. Now the fort has been "Disneyfied" and placed off limits to tourists, there is unlikely to be much more written about the structure. A comparison to local building styles and Portuguese designs for forts at that time would be interesting, but without sources that name this fort, that would be original research. I don't think I can add anything else. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response. That is fine, if its not available then it cannot be done. I think that answers the only outstanding point, so I will pass the article as GA. Well done for all the work on this.--SabreBD (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, unfortunately the architectural coverage isn't great but we can only go with what is covered in sources. Hopefully at some time or other the Omani government will make an assessment of the fort and publish a detailed PDF on the architectural aspects. Give that it's Oman though I think the historical detail is far better than expected for such a place.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)