Talk:Hagarism/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk · contribs) 17:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment

I will be reviewing this article according to the GA criteria, and expect edits to be made according to my recommendations; the article will be passed or failed according to whether it fulfills this critera. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
(see "Comments:" below)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Scholary and reliable sources used throughout. Some significant areas lacking any references.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Seems to cover major aspects.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral point of view regarding the synopsis, and different viewpoints represented in the appropriate section (see "Comments:")
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
No images used; consider whether you might be able to find a book cover and use a Fair use rationale, however.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

Use {{Italic title}} at the very top of the article to italicize the title, as per Wikipedia:ITALICS#Italic_face.
Consider rendering the list of languages used in the lead as "in various languages"; leads should be written with greater generality than the body content, and this would read much better.
- Although it would appear that these languages should be moved into the main body of the article, as they aren't there currently. The lead should summarise content, and "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. (WP:Lead)
"Hagarism explained" should be renamed. Possibly "Terminology"; current use of Hagarism is redundant, since this is the article title.
Is the first sentence of this section covered by the reference at the very end? If not, then I would think that it requires a citation, since it is an important point for understanding the article.
The second sentence of that section is confusing to read. Consider punctuating differently in order to emphasise what the subject of the sentence is. Does Hagarism here refer to the movement or the book title? It seems unclear.
"Synopsis": "which it finds"; incorrect personal pronoun here, use "the authors" instead.
The final two paragraphs of the synopsis do contain references in the frequency they would be expected (after [13] there are none for the remainder). This is a serious error.
"Impact": overuse of quotations in the second and last paragraph. As per WP:QUOTEFARM, "Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text." This definitely applies to these sections.
Prose quality suffers in the "Impact" section; repeated use of "In [date]", combined with paragraphs that finish on a quote, render it choppy and more difficult to read.
Per Wikipedia:EMBED, regarding the embedded list used in "Reviews": "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs"; I believe the passage would be improved if rendered as a plain paragraph.
References 23-26 should be listed as requiring subscription for access, using: {{subscription required}} MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final assessment: Fail MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]