Talk:Hadith of Golden Chain

Hadith of Golden Chain was a 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
September 29, 2014	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 1, 2015	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hadith task force (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shii (talk · contribs) 21:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I appreciate the effort on this important article about a major subject that people will look to Wikipedia for, however, it is not written in a fashion that conveys information clearly to people unfamiliar with Islam.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
This article's prose must be rewritten to make it basic good English. I may have the time to help you with this, but probably not.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The first paragraph of the article should describe what the hadith is about and why it is important. It does none of these things.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
The article does not describe the impact of the hadith and why it is so important to Shiites.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The pictures are the best part of the article, good work.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Please continue expanding this article. Thank you for your work

Article language edition

According to reviewer of the GA section, the language of the article should fixed so that it is capable of being presented to the world. I'm writing to ask Strivingsoul, whose useful edits I've noticed before, to make the required editions. Mhhossein (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

The sources used for this article generally seems poor and not reliable for the statements they are supposed to support. Recognized theologian sources can be usable for religious doctrine per MOS, but not for statements on what actually happened at a given time in history. Only citing some religious source for a factual statement like "Twenty (or ten or thirty) thousands have narrated this event" is in complete disregard of WP:RELIABLE, because religious sources can not be trusted on anything other than their own opinion. Per WP:RSOPINION, such sources can sometimes be acceptable if they are explicitly attributed in the text (i.e. the difference between "God likes sick-minded and deranged forms of punishment<ref>Ayatollah Khomeini</ref>" vs. "According to Ayatollah Khomeini, God likes sick-minded and deranged forms of punishment<ref>Ayatollah Khomeini</ref>".)--Anders Feder (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Feder You would simply notice that, the citation used to support "Twenty (or ten or thirty) thousands have narrated this event", refers to an academic and hence reliable source. Any other comments? Mhhossein (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein:What is academic about it?--Anders Feder (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Feder: A peer reviewed journal! Mhhossein (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein:What is the name of the journal, who are the peers reviewing it, and who considers it to be reliable?--Anders Feder (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Feder: Answers to your questions lie here. Oh sorry, you can't read Persian language, can you? Mhhossein (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein:It doesn't matter whether I can read Persian. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Farsi Wikipedia, so the burden is on you to provide the information in English.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Feder: You could find a bilingual editor. I think seyyed verifies my claim. By the way, the burden is on us to provide reliable sources! Some times reliable sources are not found in English! Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein:According to your user page you are a bilingual editor. Whether one of yours friends verifies your claim is not important - I am still waiting for your answer to my questions above in English.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reliable religious source, based on the magazine's website[1]. However it says nothing about peer review which is common in the academic magazines.[2] So as I understand, we can not consider it as an independent academic source. Therefor , we can just use it to verify Shia religious claims. I think @Mhhossein: should provide a reliable academic source which support historical facts from academic viewpoint.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa.vakilian: I thought that it's a peer reviewed journal because there's a definite editorial board for that. Mhhossein (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is an editorial board of experts, however it has not mentioned peer review. In addition, I could not find anything which let us consider it as an academic magazine accepted by the Iran's Ministry of Science.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa.vakilian: Could you please take a look at this? That is the author guide of the journal. It's mentioned that the articles are evaluated and that "..the articles are published if they are in accordance with the academic standards...". Does it change any thing? Mhhossein (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References and citations

I have started to add academic references and citations to the article. Please let me know of any thoughts. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Some of the materials which are moved from the lead into the background are not really background! for example, "According to shia, two important points..." is not a background. Mhhossein (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hadith of Golden Chain/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 18:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Royroydeb: Still waiting for your review! Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was out of my watchlist (I dont know why). Currrently it is not GA. It has great problem with prose "The story is that", "ten thousands or twenty thousands or thirty thousands narrations" etc. Also the lead is not good. Would suggest you to have it copyedited at WP:GOCER and then have it peer reviewed at WP:PR . RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Royroydeb: Was the amount of required edits so much that I could not take care of them in 7 days? Mhhossein (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]