Talk:Ali/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review completed. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Image review

Eight images used in the article (including images used in infobox/navigation templates):

File:Meshed ali usnavy (PD).jpg - Located on Wikimedia Commons. Info could use more detail on precisely who took the image, date of the picture, etc. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
030408-N-5362A-002 Near Al Najaf, Iraq (April 08, 2003) -- The holy Shiite Muslim shrine (Dareeh) of the Imam Ali sits peacefully in Najaf. The U.S. military is working with international relief organizations to help provide food and medicine for the Iraqi people in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Operation Iraqi Freedom is the multinational coalition effort to liberate the Iraqi people, eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and end the regime of Saddam Hussein. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Arlo K. Abrahamson. (RELEASED)[1]--Seyyed(t-c) 01:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information here, but the image page at Commons needs to be improved. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with Wikicommon and I think you can help us with it.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now is a great time to learn! Highly recommend you create an account there and contribute. I can help with some of these image pages but you will have fun over at Commons. It is a pretty mellow place. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I took the initiative and formatting this one over at Commons. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ali callig.gif - Located on Wikimedia Commons. Checks out okay. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:The Message - Muslim Warriors.jpg - Located locally on en.wiki. Fair use rationale not explicitly given for the 2 articles it is displayed on. I tagged it as such. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Has been removed from this article. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Investiture of Ali Edinburgh codex.jpg - Located on Wikimedia Commons. Checks out okay. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:ImamAli.jpg - Located locally on en.wiki. But also located on Wikimedia Commons. I am not sure why the Commons image is not being used instead? Cirt (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I repaced it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa.vakilian (talk • contribs)
Okay thank you. I went ahead and deleted the dup file. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Mohammad adil rais-Rashidun Caliphate-different phases.gif - Located on Wikimedia Commons. Checks out okay. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Battle of Siffin1.jpg - Located on Wikimedia Commons. Source is en.wiki? Date unknown? Author unknown? Can we get some more info/verification on this image please? Cirt (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found it in Battle of Siffin article. I can't help with it.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated this one for deletion discussion, over at Commons. Cirt (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this one from this article, pending resolution of the deletion discussion over at Commons. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Mazar-e sharif - Steve Evans.jpg - - Located on Wikimedia Commons. Checks out okay. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please address these above image issues. I will do the rest of the GA review soon. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any problem with File:Ambigram - Muhammad and Ali.jpg.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that image page looks okay. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above

These responses are great, but what I am looking for is for these deficiencies to be rectified at the image pages on Commons. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Image review completed. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review completed. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Stability review

Good improvements and work in article's edit history, but after looking back over two weeks in the history I did not spot any problems with stability other than some minor IP issues, vandalism, etc., would be a good idea to keep an eye on that going forward. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page history and inspection - not too much activity in inspection of talk page edit history, and the most recent talk archive isn't too recent either. No problems here. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Stability review completed. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stability:This article has become stable since six moths ago. There isn't any major controversy over the issues. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

Some of the sources listed in the Notes section are nothing but a linked hyperlink with text naming the link. Sure, the reader can click on it and go to the website, but these should all be formatted properly with additional information, preferably using the appropriate template from WP:CIT. Please update here on the review page once this has been done. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean write each one like this:{{Harv|Smith|1879|p=289}}--Seyyed(t-c) 05:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I was referring to the weblinks, not the notes to References/Books. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See for example the weblinks at Notes 13, 24, 26, 39, etc. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I did not say this before but yes, formatting the Notes subsection with Template:Citation/Template:Harvnb/Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples would be very helpful as well. See for example The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have this review page watchlisted. There is no need to message my talk page with updates. Please work on the Notes subsection, first, and keep me posted, here on this page. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I work on it, then you may ask to edit the text. This may lead to new change in footnotes. Please check the text first and ask me to correct footnotes, if you confirm it.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed footnotes which refer to Madelung's work. Is it acceptable.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a bit better, but it is not yet acceptable. There are still many notes that just are basically a linked-name and hyperlink to a website, these should be given more info, and changed to Template:Harvnb formatting. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed most of them. Just a few one has remained. Is it acceptable?--Seyyed(t-c) 17:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I will give some more time for work to be done on the others, for example Notes 26, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 86, 92, 101, 106, 107, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 125, 126 ,128, 129, 130, 131, 141. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. 26, 57 and 59 look correct. What's the problem?--Seyyed(t-c) 13:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

26 - hyperlink, should be changed to {{Harvnb}} formatting, like the others. 57 - some are okay, some are just wikilinks to the article Sahih Muslim, these should be changed to {{Harvnb}}. 59 - this is just a hyperlink - one of the problems I have been saying repeatedly from the beginning. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used cite web template which is completely acceptable when we refer to a site. How can I use Harv when the author and year in unknown. 57, This is the style we use in articles which relate to Islam. These are not sources and we've added them just for clarification. Please read MOS:ISLAM. Almost all of the other cases should change to the form of 26 or 57.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)

26 - simply providing "Fatima Bint Muhammad". USC. is not sufficient referencing. More information is needed - is there an author of the page? a webmaster? someone attributable to the document? a date the document was made? or a copyright year on the page itself or when the page was last updated? is "USC" the publisher, or the work? is this a subsection of a larger work?
57 - same problem I keep repeating - a link to another wiki article and a hyperlink with no other information is not sufficient and is inappropriate referencing.
59 - see above.

Cirt (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)

See MOS:ISLAM#References_at_end_of_article: References at the end include books, journals and many other types of sources. The citation templates for these are suggested for use. - quoting MOS:ISLAM. This actually supports what I have been saying repeatedly all along. Cirt (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think number 26 is not a good source. I can remove it easily. Duo to the fact that every section is based on more than one source.

In the case of Qur'an and Hadith, apparantly I couldn't describe the issue correctly. According to MOS, Editors can not use primary sources to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. But it's good idea to add Qur'an and Hadith to clarify the issue. Hadith and Quran aren't source. They just use for clarification. Please take a look at Islam article which is FA. As you can see in ref. 12 and 13 this is the style which we use. You are the first editor who oppose it.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you are using {{cite quran}}, there appears to be consensus for that, so I guess that is okay although not the best way to go as far as sourcing. Issues still remain with Notes 5, 13, 26, 56 (link to Google Books not appropriate, see WP:COPYLINKS), 59, 63, 101, 106, 107, 112, 113, 114, 116, 119, 120, 125, 126, 129, 141. Cirt (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to improve them today.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sounds good. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I was busy since two days ago. I'll do it as soon as possible.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not GA at this time[edit]

I am sorry to say I do not feel this article is GA-quality at this time. See above comments for recommendations of thing to improve upon (referencing), and things that seem fine so far (images). Great work so far, but going forward I would suggest a peer review to bring in suggestions on improvement from multiple editors. Cirt (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]