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

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]

• Comment It is better now but we still have a one-sided Effects section. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support in addition to the comments above, you should check the quotes to make sure they are in their entirety, otherwise you need to lead them in or follow them out with three dots. Otherwise, it look goods. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.