Talk:Introduction to the Science of Hadith

Introduction to the Science of Hadith was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 17, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
December 4, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Introduction to the Science of Hadith article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Islam: Hadith Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hadith task force.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Introduction to the Science of Hadith/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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]