Talk:Succession to Muhammad/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 13:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is good. For the layout, see the comment below about article structure.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Great job with the references, you corrected the issue of over-reliance on ancient sources. Please just check the Harvard citations, see the comment below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Yes, I'm glad you added info on Zaydi and Ibadi views.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This was the biggest issue in the old version, and in my opinion you've completely corrected it with your rewrite. You give equal weight to both sides of the dispute.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Awesome work on this article, you fixed all of the problems from the previous review. I left a few comments below, please take a look and let me know what you think. For the structure, I'm open to discussion on if it should be kept as is or revised. I'll put the article on hold for now. Perfect, I'll pass as GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Awesome thank you! Alivardi (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Structure: My biggest concern is that the division into the "historical overview" and "hadiths" sections puts events out of chronological order. I think it might be better if those two sections were combined, it could help readers follow the events more easily. What do you think?

I was actually going through a similar thought-process while working on the article. The reason I went for this format in the end was that I wanted to make a distinction between disputed and non-disputed histories. The "Historical overview" discusses events which are accepted by most, if not all parties. "Hadiths" however, covers incidents which are contested, with belief in them tending to be matters of faith as opposed to historical evidence. This results in parts which are completely contradictory to each other. I'm concerned that grouping the two sections together may just end up confusing the reader.

But I completely understand your thoughts about the chronology. As an alternative suggestion, I was thinking it might be better to just swap the placements of the two sections? This should result in a chronological layout, since the hadiths all occurred during Muhammad's lifetime while the overview section covers the events following his death. Plus, given how heavily "Historiography" discusses hadiths, it makes sense to have "Hadiths" be placed immediately after. What are your thoughts? Alivardi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)1

@Alivardi: Yes I think your suggestion makes sense, let's go with that. Cerebellum (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: Done.[1] Alivardi (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Historiography: I recommend removing the phrase his biography is perpetuated by community memory for its guidance, I don't think you need it.

Done.[2] Alivardi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• References: There's an issue with the Harvard citations, when I click on the wikilinks nothing happens. Is it the same for you? I'm not too familiar with the harv template so I'm not sure why, but Template:Harvard_citation#Wikilink_to_citation_does_not_work might help.

Fixed I think.[3] The annoying thing is that I've been using this format for over a year without realising I've been doing it wrong. Alivardi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Feast of Dhul Asheera: Reading this, I didn't realize until the last paragraph that this event occurred at the beginning of Muhammad's ministry. I recommend adding something towards the beginning to that effect, since the other events discussed occurred soon before his death.

Added an approximate year for the event.[4] Alivardi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Shia view: The last sentence is really long, consider revising.

Done.[5] Alivardi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• External links: Some of the links, to witness-pioneer.org, don't seem to work. Also, there's some overlap between the further reading and external links sections, you might be able to combine those two. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Added alternative links where possible. Also combined the two sections as suggested.[6] Alivardi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)