Talk:'Adud al-Dawla/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

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.	Hard to determine without sources.
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).	See below
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See below.
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

Effort has clearly been put into editing this atricle, but it fails to pass GA nomination for several reasons:

• The most outstanding is the need for sourcing of the majority of the article, and for the sources to be cited in a more comprehensive way (other than just the name). This includes pages (for books), or access dates (for websites).
• This article is replete with statements such as "regarded as the greatest monarch of the dynasty" (one source); "His death was a great blow to the Buyids." (unsourced); "However, he still preferred Arabic authors more than Persian ones... apparently showing interest in Arabic rather than Persian, Adud-Dawla followed the mainstream of intellectual life in a provincial town where culture was dominated by Arabic and Persian." (uncited, and relevance concerns)
  • Without sources I cannot say if these statements are neutral or not neutral.
• Small stylistic concerns:
  • "who practically became independent from Abbasid rule. " practically?
  • "On May/June:" -> "In (month)", "May/June"-> "May-June"

I am happy to discuss this further, and will leave the review open for this reason for several days, but unfortunately do not expect it's possible to get this article to the required standard soon. LT910001 (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to fix the problems, what do you think now? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. I am marking this review as failed. This topic is clearly a complex and notable one. However I feel that this article relies very heavily from a single source, and that that impacts the way it is written and its readability. Many of the points I have raised above (readability, neutrality, broadness/scope) are not resolved. I strongly feel that this article would benefit from a WP:Peer review asking for improvements, and for an extra 3-4 sources to be integrated throughout the article before this article is renominated for GA promotion. This is certainly a good article and a lot of effort has gone into its development, and I hope this is not too discouraging, but Rome wasn't built in a day and the best foods take a while to prepare. LT910001 (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To mark an article for peer review, add {{subst:PR}} to the talk page, save and view the talk page, and then create the peer review page with a question (a good one here might be "how can I improve this article's quality in preparation for GA nomination?") LT910001 (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I wish you well on your wikitravels, LT910001 (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)