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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

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)[reply]
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
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
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):
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)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]