# Talk:Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fatimid invasion of Egypt (919–921)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 00:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Taking a look at this one. —Ed!(talk) 00:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
It is reasonably well written:
Pass External links, dup links and dab links look good. Copyvio detector returns green.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here.
It is broad in its coverage:
Not Yet
The first sentence of the lead should incorporate both the Fatmid Caliphate and the Abbasid Caliphate links to make it clear at first glance what we're talking about.
Done.
Any estimates on military size? Casualties?
Not really, unlike the first invasion the information in the sources is not that detailed.
Would be good to add what numbers are known of men and ships in the infobox.
Since total forces are not known, I am loath to put in only partial tallies; that would be misleading.
Recovery of Cyrenaica: Explanation or link needed for Barqa.
Fixed.
Any estimated population of Alexandria in this time?
I had a look around, but unfortunately no; the situation for the early medieval centuries is very unclear, other than it being a populous city, although much declined from its Greco-Roman high. The only number I could find is 65,000 for the 13th century, which is too far from the present period to be of use.
An explanation of the strategic benefit of taking the oasis might be worth adding here.
Done.
I note the analysis section of the first invasion article, any chance some of this could be included here too?
Per above, unfortunately not so much information is available for this invasion.
Aftermath, might be good to add more links regarding the subsequent invasion that conquered Egypt. What contributed to the decline of the Abbasids?
Done.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass No problems there, though it should be mentioned in the lead that the sources that retell the story are mostly Sunni.
Hmmm, I am not sure that is important for the summary; the events are not retold here based on the primary sources, but on the reconstruction and synthesis by modern scholars.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass Two CC images presented which makes sense given the context of the article. I'd think a map giving the specific military moves would be preferred, but one listing the locations of actions in questions would suffice.
Other:
On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!(talk) 01:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ed!, thanks for taking the time to review. I've made some tweaks here and there, please have a look. Also, if you have any comments on further improvement, above and beyond GA requirements, please don't hesitate to add them here. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  14:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
As far as suggestions above GAN, I think the above questions need to be addressed in the article one way or another – if estimated sizes of the militaries and casualties aren't clear, it should be explained in the article that this is because the records aren't containing them, and that the records on this invasion aren't as thorough as those on the previous invasion. That context is essential and I think it can probably be added around the area that you explain the sources are mostly Sunni on this. It is in fact important because these details are basic and essential for an article about a battle and their absence is noticeable; though it's understandable records aren't there, just needs to be explained.
Anyway, based on the GA criteria though this isn't a stringent requirement, so will Pass the GAN now. —Ed!(talk) 15:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)