Talk:Mullá Husayn/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 20:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this. Normally I would just start the review right away, but I noticed you have not edited since October 2017. So I will just wait and see if you respond first.20:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations

So we meet again. Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I am Buddhist and have little knowledge about Bahá'í religion. I did meet a number of Bahá'í devotees during my life, for what it is worth.

The main problem with the article is the sources used. Details follow.

Overview

1. Prose:

At times, the article lacks an encyclopedic tone with proper academic distance. Beliefs should be designated as such: "Mullá Husayn was a Persian religious figure...and the first Letter of the Living of the Bábí religion." is religious language and should be rephrased as "is believed to be", "is called", etc., or in an active voice "Bahá'í devotees believe him to be...", etc. The phrase ...a prominent participant in the perceived fulfillment of many elements of Islamic eschatology., on the other hand, is correct encyclopedic style.
On a similar note, technical terms vital to understanding the text should be glossed inline, translated, or simply avoided.
I will go into detail later below.
According to this Earwig scan, there are no copyright violations.

2. MOS: the article meets MOS standards at GA level.
3. References layout: There are some Harvard errors, which you can identify using this tool. The year and the surnames of all authors must be in the shortened footnotes and match. The Brittanica article has become a dead link.
4. Reliable sources: The article makes much use of primary sources. Sources which are primary are all the sources from the Bahá'í Publishing Trust. In my interpretation of core policies, a source which approaches the subject with academic distance, published by an academic publisher, even if it is a Bahá'í, is allowable. This is disputed on Wikipedia, however. Regardless, statements which pertain to the reliability of the subject, such as Contemporary reports indicate that he received treatment for epilepsy and heart palpitations... or ...was reported to have drawn significant public attention cannot be supported by merely primary sources, whether positive or negative in nature. Primary sources should only be used for basic facts which require no specialist interpretation, and also, are unlikely to be a form of cherry-picking. So this means you might have to cut out some content here and there, or find more secondary, reliable sources instead of the primary ones.
5. Original research: Possibly, as primary sources are much used.
6. Broadness: A number of scholarly works have not been used in the article. Google Scholar lists many sources if you search for Mullá Husayn.
7. Focus: The article has the proper prose size (38 Kb).
8. Neutral: Some sections, such as the lead, have WP:PEACOCK terms that should be removed or specified, such as a paragon of courage and spiritual excellence.—even if these terms are attributed.
9. Stable: article is stable.
10-11. Pics: There are several files that have no tag for the USA yet.

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section, as soon as you or someone else replies.--22:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, fixed point 3. Perhaps you could send an email to Penultimate supper, due to the long time since editing? --Usernameunique (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i'll try. Thanks, Usernameunique.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed nominator, but no response. Failing.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 00:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.