Talk:Islam: The Untold Story/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. I'll do a close read of the article over the next day or two, noting any initial issues I see here that I can't immediately fix. I'll then begin the formal checklist of the criteria. Looking forward to working with you, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

First readthrough

• "Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West (2005), and Millennium: The End of the World and the Forging of Christendom" --you might consider adding redlinks for these per WP:REDLINK. As bestsellers, it seems extremely likely that they meet our notability criteria. This isn't a factor for the GA Review either way, though.
• "both Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a practising Muslim who teaches Islamic studies at the George Washington University, Washington D.C., and Dr. Patricia Crone," -- going from their Wiki articles, Nasr and Crone appear to both be professors with PhDs; it would be best to call them both professor or both "Dr."
• "attention-seeking, neo-Conservative, Niall Ferguson lookalike" -- This isn't a factor for a GA Review, but note that the MOS all but forbids wls in quotations at MOS:QUOTE.
• "exclaimed " -- Crace doesn't seem to literally exclaim this (using an exclamation point or otherwise indicating great excitement); a better word should be found.
• "exclaimed" x 2 -- Same for Zaidi-Jivraj.
• "have a negative reaction on" -- is the meaning here that Muslims would have a negative reaction? Or that the doc would add to negative public perception of Muslims?
• "American-made short film Innocence of Muslims" -- "American-made" may be overstating this slightly; it was made in America by an Egyptian citizen.
• "would describe", "She would furthermore argue" -- I'm not sure why this tense is being used. Do you mean this is what she intended to say if allowed to attend the event? (Perhaps use "in her talk, she had planned to describe" or some such language) -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for undertaking this review Khazar! I've made changes to all but one of your points. Best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent, and spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article does an excellent job portraying arguments on all sides and clearly attributing them to sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It would be great to get a picture of Tom Holland for this article, but the credits image is sufficient to meet this criterion.
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent work.