Talk:Introduction to the Science of Hadith/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The next several chapters relate to the isnād, or chain of narration. Poor prose, "next several" is ungrammatical.

   A number of subsequent scholars followed Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ in the ordering of his book, from them: "from them"? Do you mean amongst them?

   From the scholars who spoke highly of the Introduction are: Again mis-use of "from"

   From the numerous editions of the Introduction in its original Arabic are two of the more reliable:[ and again

   There are several bulleted lists, these need turning into prose, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)  Not done

   There are still several lists remaining. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I assume good faith for all sources which are off-line

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   What is the relevance of the image File:Arab. Ms.JPG? It appears to be just a sample of arabic script and thus contrary to policy, see Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature

   There has been no response to this point. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   Well there have been a few improvements but two important points remain outstanding so I am not listing this at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)