Talk:Sources of Sharia/GA1

GA Review

There are several spots in the article where you use terms such as "many people..." without sources. Try adding a few sources in those places. --Orca8767 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I only found one such occasion, and I accordingly blanked it.[1]

As I see now, the entire article is sourced (except the lead, which doesn't have to be per Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations).

If there are any further problems with the article, please point them out.Bless sins (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review 2

See Talk:Sources of Islamic law/GA2.

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Passed with flying colors

2. Factually accurate?: Passed, all content is verifiable.

3. Broad in coverage?: Passed, very good.

4. Neutral point of view?: Passed

5. Article stability? Passed, very good structure.

6. Images?: Passed

This was my first article I ever reviewed, and I think it was great. Good job! :) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. --Orca8767 (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to improve it further.Bless sins (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)