Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adjwilley (talk · contribs) 21:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article over the next several days. Please feel free to communicate with me here, or on my talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	I'm a little bit concerned about some of the prose...I'll discuss this below. I think it's good enough for a pass though.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The WP:ALLEGED problem has been taken care of, and the article seems to follow the MOS adequately.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Good use of inline citations. I personally like the Harv citation templates, and I'm glad you're using those.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	It looks like the article is citing a variety of good sources from reliable publishers.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Looks like it covers the main aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Overall good, just a couple small problems. Some parts seem to come from a believer's point of view, but not bad enough to disqualify.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Article is surprisingly stable.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	I've checked the images and they all seem to be good.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	I agree with having the image of Bahá'u'lláh at the bottom of the article, and think it's a suitable compromise between not censoring Wikipedia and not offending believers. I realize there are people on both sides who will disagree, but congratulate you on finding a middle-ground.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Initial perception

I have read the entire article, and it passes the quickfail test. It looks like it's citing good sources as well. There seem to be several problems with the prose that will need some attention before the article can pass. The POV seemed ok, but will probably need some small fixes here and there. It is obviously too early in the review to make any conclusions, but I think this has a fair shot at passing.

As a side note, I do encourage participation here on the review talk page by interested editors, as I like to get to know the community a bit. It looks like the three editors who have the most edits to the article (who are still actively editing it) are Jeff3000, Wiki-uk, and Geni, and the nominator is Peter Deer. Also, I will be out of town from about May 26–May 29, and unable to edit or respond to queries during that time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Images

I need to check the licensing for the following images that need to be tagged for public domain in the US

• File:Bahaullah-passport.jpg
• File:Early_Bahais-1.jpg
• File:Bahaullah from miller.jpg

~Adjwilley (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've looked them over and they seem fine. I added a couple more public domain tags to a few. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Prose

Him who God shall make manifest

This term is used 11 times in the article, often making for awkward-reading sentences. Is there a shorter alternative for this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Baghdad section

For some reason this section doesn't seem quite neutral to me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems to come from the point of view of a believer. For instance, the use of the word "persecution" seems a little off, and there seems to be an effort to make it clear that Mírzá Yahyá was definitely not Him who God shall make manifest. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)