Talk:Abu Lu'lu'a/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll broaden my horizons, etc. Will start this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Images:
- I'd suggest adding "early 20th-century depiction" somehow into the drawing image
  Done ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General:
- ~~I believe the various "(lit 'XX definition')" constructions should be "(lit. "XXX definition")" .... use double quotation marks~~
  MOS:SINGLE says that glosses should take single quotes; the {{lit}} template that is used in the article also only renders single quotes (its /doc citing MOS:SINGLE as a justification) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, I see we've got yet another specialized template to do things one particular way and not allow any sort of variation ... blech. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Y
Biography section:
- "mosque of Medina" link for this?
  Done ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Kulayb ibn al-Bukayr al-Laythi" if this person is notable, link to the article, otherwise, I suggest going with "he also killed a bystander behind Umar"
  no entry in the the Encyclopedia of Islam and only two unclear results in Google Scholar, so assuming not notable; wrote "one bystander" to contrast with thirteen people in other version ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The removal of the name was disputed; there is a discussion at the talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  You correctly devined my reasoning for wanting it reomoved, it's unnecessary clutter that distracts from the subject of the article. The current iteration is even worse - it makes the prose bloated and is a GA criteria 3b issue. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I just noticed "claim of one man (either Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf or Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr) that they had been seen conspiring" as another issue of bloat/focus - do we need to know these two possible names? -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  ~~I agree that mentioning Kulayb ibn al-Bukayr al-Laythi is unnecessary and distracting, but of course Wiqi55, who added this information, also has a say in this.~~
  
  About Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf and Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr I'm less sure. One of the Abd al-Rahmans is also depicted in the image to the left. More importantly, these are very much notable figures, the first belonging to the ten to whom Paradise was promised and the second being the son of the first caliph and Umar's predecessor Abu Bakr. Both these aspects are heavily laden with pro-Qurayshi/pro-Sunni echoes (the ten to whom Paradise was promised being an early pro-Qurayshi/Sunni concept and Abu Bakr being revered by Sunnis), so the fact that these figures were chosen by later tradition as the ones who bore witness to the purported conspiracy against Umar (also revered by Sunnis) is not likely to be coincidental. There is much 'hidden' meaning like this in these stories, but by linking to the articles we can at least give the readers a hint of why these details are important. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Feedback required
  
  It would appear that there is a rough consensus among editors at the talk page to leave the name of Kulayb ibn al-Bukayr al-Laythi in (without the extra bloat about him being mentioned by Ibn Hajar). I've also added a secondary source mentioning him as a victim of Abu Lu'lu'a.
  
  I think that everything considered, mentioning the names of people who played a direct role in the events (witness, victim) is not entirely undue. Why would history record these names if not because they were thought to be important at some point? The prose certainly is a bit dense here and there, but as a whole it remains focused on the core events. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "After Ubayd Allah was detained, he threatened to kill all foreign captives residing in Medina, as well as some others." ... this sentence lost me .. Ubayd Allah was detained? This sentence is disconected from the rest of the paragraph and narrative, so it's confusing.
  He was detained for the murder of Abu Lu'lu'a's daughter, Hurmuzān, and Jufayna. I clarified this and added some more pertinent info at the end of the third paragraph to make it more obvious. Though I think it's clear now, this new info may need further review. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  This works. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Y
- "Nevertheless, while Ubayd Allah was subsequently acquitted of his crimes" ... which crimes?
  Done clarified that the murder of Abu Lu'lu'a's daughter, Hurmuzān, and Jufayna was recognized as a crime ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- " (a.o."? explain this abbreviation or just ... expand it?
  Done replaced by "amongst others," ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Annual celebration section:
- This section is a bit ... big for the article on the person. It's barely shorter than the actual main article itself. This whole section could use some trimming - I'd suggest trying to keep it down to things that actually illuminate something about the subject of the article. I realize that this has been discussed on the talk page in the past, but the other article should be developed further if there is more information. While some information on the festival is clearly due here - some of this information does not shed any light on the legacy of the subject and should be in the primary topic for the festival.
  - In line with this, here's a sugested first paragraph (I've cut the refs as I haven't changed the order of info, just cut some extraneous details)
  - "During the 16th-century conversion of Iran to Shia Islam under Safavid rule, a festival began being held in honor of Abu Lu'lu'a and his assassination of Umar. Named Omar-koshan (lit. 'the killing of Umar'), it was originally held around Abu Lu'lu'a's sanctuary in Kashan, on the anniversary of Umar's death. Later the celebration spread elsewhere in Iran, sometimes on 9 Rabi' al-Awwal rather than on 26 Dhu al-Hijja."
    You're right that it was in need of some trimming. I also wrote the Omar Koshan article at about the same time as this one, and I clearly copy-pasted a bit too much. I trimmed some, summarized some, rewrote some, but also added a little to further clarify some of the more important things (the controversy around some Shi'is celebrating the assassin of one the most revered figures in Sunni Islam accounts for 50% or more of this subject's notability). I took it from 444 words to 294. Does it look alright now? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a few more concision cuts - check them? I think that your text is an improvement, much less chance of overwhelming the article. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Feedback required Checked them, and they were generally good. Copy-edited a little more and corrected one mistake. I think we should be good on this one now? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth, thanks very much for the review! I addressed all of your points above. Of one thing I'm not sure, and two points need some feedback and/or further review.

I should probably also note that this is a very controversial subject, which was not easy to get 'right'. I think that most issues brought up by good-faith editors have now been resolved, but disruption from IPs and soon-to-be-blocked accounts is likely to continue indefinitely. For this reason, the higher-than-average level of disruption which is apparent in the article's history page should not be held against it.

If you should note more issues, please feel free to address them too! Thanks again, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved one point from 'done' to 'discussion ongoing'. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that and the issue of ref formating also is coming up... will wait to see if we're into unstable territory ... Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth, I think that a rough consensus has formed at the talk page, which is reflected in article. There are two points left on which feedback is required, but I think we should be good now. Let me know what you think! Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see what the name of a non-notable person adds, and think it just distracts from the flow of the narrative, but this is a GAN, not an FAC, so it's not a deal-breaker. I would, however, be much more opposed to it at FAC, should this article make it there - the prose is very dense and would need some work to get to FAC standards. Passinng now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]