# Talk:Fatima bint al-Ahmar

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fatima bint al-Ahmar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Darouet (talk · contribs) 14:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This is my first "good article review," and is written in response to this request [1] at my talk page. I am basing my review on these criteria [2].
First, I should note that none of the "immediate failures" that preclude GA status are found in this article. The article is in good overall shape (avoids failure #1). The article contains no long quotes or passages that could lead to copyright violations (avoids failure #2). There are no cleanup tags or edit wars ongoing (avoids failure #3 and 4). I see no previous review with unanswered criticisms (avoids failure #5.)
Next, I'll review each GA criterion:

The article is clearly written. At times the language is a little formal; in the future, perhaps a more informal or relaxed style would make reading easier for readers who are not historians.
The article is very well sourced, with inline citations meticulously added throughout.
This criterion asks that an article be "broad in its coverage." This is the only criterion where I think the article could benefit from improvement. Specifically, I think the article would benefit from a "background" section where the geopolitical context of the Emirate is described. That section could also include some information on Fatima's family history in the Emirate, and the role of women in Granada during this period. Despite these suggestions, the article is broad in other ways. For instance the content on Fatima's legacy at the end of the article draws upon commentary from a contemporary poet, from modern historians, and describes Fatima's lasting impact.
The article shows no bias that I can perceive.
The article is not subject to edit wars or content disputes.
The article contained one diagram at its conclusion. I have added two additional and relevant images to ensure it is sufficiently illustrated.
Based upon these article qualities, I recommend that the article be promoted to good article status. My thanks to the authors. -Darouet (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: Thank you for taking a look and for your feedback. I agree with your point regarding background, I added a background section containing the geopolitical context and the role of women as recorded in history. Please take a look if it looks okay, and let me know if you have further feedback.  HaEr48 (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Darouet: Sorry for pinging, I notice the review is still open for a while after my last response. Do you plan to do another round of review, or are you ready to make a decision? HaEr48 (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@HaEr48: my apologies. It is my opinion that Fatima bint al-Ahmar has passed the GA test and should now be listed as a good article. Please let me know what more I can do to place this judgement into effect. -Darouet (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Darouet: Ah, no worries at all. The instruction to finish a review is here Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Step 4: Finishing the review. Basically you need to add/update some templates in a few places, so that the system will record the result of the review. I understand it might not be easy for the first time, so let me know if you have any questions! HaEr48 (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I added Template:Editnotices/Page/Fatima bint al-Ahmar to help ensure new citations are added via parenthetical referencing. I also added {{Use Harvard referencing}} to the top of the article's wikitext (not displayed in regular view). Peaceray (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

In the second sentence of the lead, is barnabaj the correct term? I cannot find a definition of it & am wondering if it is a non-standard transliteration. Can someone please provide a link to a source that explains this term? Peaceray (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah me neither. I was actually thinking of starting an article on the topic but couldn't find any sources.VR talk 14:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Vice regent and Peaceray: It is indeed a typo, thanks for noticing. The correct transliteration is barnamaj which is correctly spelled in the article body. Even this I find unusual, but it comes up in multiple sources (including Rubiera Mata, Boloix Gallardo), and I see no reason to doubt it. For what it's worth there is an entry in wiktionary: wikt:برنامج, it seems close enough. It may also have been an Andalusian Arabic terminology which has different meanings elsewhere. HaEr48 (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)