Unassessed. I ahve made the article taking stringent precautions so as to adhere to the best practices. I wish to see the article being given a FA rating, It has all the information needed ina precise manner and mantains neutrality. However I wish to see if others feel the same! --Pranav (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion quite a good article from our Early Muslim Military history task force. Wandalstouring 13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support even though IMO it needs more cits. Kyriakos 05:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support - a bit unreferenced, especially "Byzantine resurgence" and "Conclusion" sections. --Eurocopter tigre 12:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support 34 references are quite enough as a minimum. Some NPOV is needed. Sometimes it seems clear that it was written from a Byzantine POV. Examples: loss of southern Italian territories can mean gain of Southern Italian territories depending from where you see it. Conflicts with the Caliphate however continued between the 800s and 1169 can mean the same thing if we would say simply Conflicts
with the Caliphate however continued between the 800s and 1169... -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
