Talk:Battle of Marj Rahit (684)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 11:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I’ll take a look at this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• "which would contribute to much strife and instability for the remainder of the Umayyad Caliphate." Optional: remove "much".

• Hmmm, it contributed more than its share, I'd say, so I'd prefer to leave it in ;) Otherwise I could replace it with Changed to "would be a constant source of strife..."

• "and even laid siege to Mecca" I think that you either need to explain why this is so surprising or delete "even".

• Clarified.

• "who rallied around the governor of Damascus" Capital G.

• Fixed.

• "The most enduring legacy of Marj Rahit was the consolidation of the Qays–Kalb split in Syria" 'consolidating a split' reads very oddly. Optional: something like 'the confirmation of the enduring Qays–Kalb split'?

• Changed to "hardening", is that better?

It is.

• "between the two groups became a fixture of the Arab world over the next decades" "next" -> 'following'.

• Fixed.

• No images? It could really do with a location map. I dug out my trusty Muir's and I am familiar with the area and era.

• Good point. I've added a map, plus another reference on the approx. location of the plaon.

Um. That's all I could find. This is one of your best pieces of work, and that is saying something. Can I seriously suggest that you reconsider taking it to ACR.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and for the kind comments :). Much of the credit has to go to the sources, Kennedy and especially Hawting, whose book on the Umayyads presents the subject with admirable clarity and succinctness; I heartily recommend them if you are interested in the topic. On an ACR, I'll think about it. If neither I nor Al Ameer son, who is our resident early Islamic Syria expert, can find much to add to the article over the next few months, it is very likely. Constantine ✍ 22:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed