Talk:No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: @harej 08:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): "He writes, (blockquote) the notion that historical context" Why does the quote begin lowercase? If you are quoting midsentence, it should be indicated as such ("[T]he"). Which beckons the question: why is this being quoted midsentence?

   b (MoS): Yes

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Yes

   b (citations to reliable sources): Yes

   c (OR): No original research

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers the major points.

   b (focused): The reception section is longer than the contents section, which seems to just gloss over the book. Surely more could be said about it? As for the reception section, be sure to include a specific remark from the Muslim world about the book if one exists. Also check to see if Aslan's points have been debated within the academic world.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: There seems to be a lot of positive reviews, but if that's just because there were far more positive reviews than negative reviews, so be it.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: No edit wars.

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): All properly tagged

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Yes, though it is interesting that there is no picture of the book. Unless consensus has changed, there usually is a picture of the front cover of books to accompany articles.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I don't see where the Fareed Zakaria quote comes from; there is no citation for it and I cannot find it in the references provided. Also, I typically like to see a background section to put the book in context of where it came from, who wrote it (currently the only mention is in the lead), why...etc. --maclean (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• • In accordance with both harej's and maclean's points, I'm going to fail this article; there's more work to be done and the writer has retired. Wizardman 03:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)