Talk:Mudéjar revolt of 1264–1266/GA1

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this in the next couple of days. auntieruth (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Minor tweaks here please review!

• Thanks! Most of them look good, and I added some minor adjustments. HaEr48 (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. the last sentence of first paragraph of "Background" is partially uncited. ....which became the principal centers of this rebellion.

• I improved the referencing of that sentence. I didn't add first because the centers of the rebellion are the basic facts of the article cited somewhere else, but I agree it's better to cite it explicitly. HaEr48 (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think the background would be strengthened by including something on why there needed to be a reconquest in the first place: that the Muslims had conquered the Iberianpeninsula in the 6-8th centuries; that the constant infighting in the peninsula resulted in alliances between Christians and Muslims, Muslims andMuslims and Christians and Christians; and that, by the 11th/12th/13th centuries, the hardening of Christian and Islamic ideologies into crusade and jihad added a zealous religious element to conflicts. You can probably extract some of this from the article on the Reconquista. auntieruth (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. I need to consult sources on this, but I am currently travelling with limited internet connection, which makes this difficult. Can you give me about 1 or 2 weeks? HaEr48 (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, ping me whenyou get to it.  :) auntieruth (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Auntieruth55: Thanks for the understanding. Managed to get this done today (diff), please take a look and let me know if there's more I can do. HaEr48 (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   see notes above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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:

• Thanks Auntieruth55 for the review and for making some copyedits. Please see my comments above. HaEr48 (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]