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 article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam: Hadith Low‑importance 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

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]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. 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]

2. 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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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]

7. 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]