Talk:Moorish Gibraltar

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 15:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

This looks really solid on the first pass: well written, well sourced, and comprehensive. I've noted three small concerns I couldn't resolve on my own.

• I did some minor copyediting for grammar and style as I went. Please feel free to revert anything you disagree with, and double-check me to make sure I haven't accidentally introduced any errors.
• "before his death in 1069" -- clarify pronoun-- Abbad II's or the Governor's?
• "Gibraltar would be a harder nut to crack." -- rewrite in plainer language per WP:IDIOM
• Do Granadi and Granadan mean the same thing? If so, these terms should probably be made consistent.

I've had a look at this as Prioryman doesn't seem to have been too active the last couple of days:

• I think it means Abbad II's death in 1069 but Prioryman will need to check the sources.
• I've rewritten this to "Gibraltar, however, would not fall as easily."
• granadí is the old Spanish demonym favoured when describing the inhabitants of the Emirate of Granada (as opposed to granadino when referring to modern day Granada), in the same way as andalusí is used in Spanish as a demonym for Al-Andalus (as opposed to andaluz when referring to modern day Andalusia). In any case one would use Granadan when writing in English so I've changed the single reference to "granadí" to "Granadan" for consistency.

--Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 12:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for tackling these. Once we're 100% sure on that pronoun issue, this is ready to pass, then. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just a heads up that I won't have Internet access for the next 3-7 days. I apologize for the delay this will cause in the review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry I've been slow to respond - have been away from home without Internet access. I've clarified the pronoun issue now. I'm happy with the other changes that you and Gibmetal have made. Prioryman (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Kudos to the nominator (Prioryman) for donating so many images to this one.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Would this be appropriate?

File:Five sterling pounds of Gibraltar - Tariq Ibn Ziyad.jpg

Tariq ibn Ziyad and the Moorish Castle on an old Gibraltar banknote.

Would it be appropriate to include this pic in the article? To have had this printed on currency reflects the importance given to this period in Gibraltar's history, however, I don't want to put my foot in it while the GA review is in progress. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 12:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the image is reasonable in itself, but the article is a bit image-heavy at the moment; I'm not sure where this one could fit in without taking another out. That's just my opinion, though; overcrowding of images isn't a GA criterion, so it's fine either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've added it above the map in the first section which discusses Tariq's landings. I think it looks alright (maybe aligned left?). Your thoughts? --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for the addition. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Moorish Gibraltar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.