Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of the Yarmuk/1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Polish Piast (talk | contribs) →Battle of the Yarmuk: Reply |
close GAR Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of the Yarmuk/1 as delist (GANReviewTool) |
||
Line 1:
===[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of the Yarmuk/1|Battle of the Yarmuk]]===
{{atopr}}
: {{al|Battle of the Yarmuk|noname=yes}} • <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Battle_of_the_Yarmuk/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page]</span> • [[Talk:Battle of the Yarmuk/GA1|Most recent review]]
: <span>{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Good article reassessment/Battle of the Yarmuk/1|[[Category:GAR/79]]}} '''Result''': Consensus to delist</span> [[User:Real4jyy|Real4jyy]] ([[User talk:Real4jyy|talk]]) 01:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)<br/>
There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Some of the notes have "verification needed" tags from 2011. Many sources listed in the bibliography are not used as intext citations. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 14:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Line 11:
:::[[Agha Ibrahim Akram|Akram was a recognised military historian]] in addition to being a senior military officer; they may not be the ''best'' sources, but the bar for GA is low (not ''un''reliable), and I'd suggest that the article has bigger sourcing problems at the moment. However, replacing them with works with greater scholarly impact would be a net positive. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 18:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Delist''' The same as other people's opinion [[User:Polish Piast|Polski Piast from Poland § ]] ([[User talk:Polish Piast|talk]]) 10:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
| |||