Talk:Tablighi Jamaat/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SBC-YPR (talk)

I will be reviewing this article over the next several days. The version I will be reviewing is this one, and subsequent changes will not form a part of the initial review. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Generally satisfactory. Some minor copy-editing required, which I'll help out with.

B. MoS compliance:
Some work to be done here. Muhammad Ilyas, Deobandi, fiqh, Nizamuddin West and Hanafi are overlinked. Saharanpur and Barbara D. Metcalf need to be linked. The mention of the British operations in the Organization section seems out of place - does Britain have any special significance over other international branches of TJ? Also, the second external link is dead while the sixth does not seem to be directly relevant to this article. If TJ has an official website, it should be mentioned in the list of external links.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Generally, reliable sources have been used as references in the article. However, the FBI cannot be regarded as an accurate estimate for the number of TJ members - please replace it with a more reliable source. Also, this (Ref 44) cannot be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
A few sentences and claims need citations. I have tagged them as such in the article.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
The Six Principles could be elaborated into a separate article (just a suggestion not essential for the review).
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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

As a result of the above, I have placed the article on hold for a period of one week, after which I will take a look at it again and accordingly pass or fail the article. Please feel free to contact me for any clarifications. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that i've complete almost all of recommended work. But I was wondering about the FBI estimate. In article, it is presented as 'according to FBI' and not as a fact. Isn't it ok to mention it that way? — Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 05:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits seem to be satisfactory. I've performed a couple of minor copy-edits, and the article looks fine now. The FBI reference is fine as long as its explicitly mentioned to be an estimate. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have now passed the article as a GA, and listed it as such on the Good Articles page under Philosophy and religion. For the record, User:Muhammad Hamza contributed significantly to this GA pass (with five or more major edits during the GA review process).

For futher improvement in the future, I would suggest that the article be peer reviewed a second time for obtain suggestions to meet requirements of comprehensiveness and high-quality sourcing, before an FA review is attempted. All the best! Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]