Talk:Rasul Mir/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Modussiccandi (talk · contribs) 21:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I will review this article. I'll start posting comments on here later today. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

After reading through the article several times, I'm afraid I'll have to close this review as a "Quick Fail". This outcome is reached when a nominee is a long way removed from meeting any of the Good Article criteria. Below are the two criteria which I believe this article won't meet unless substantially re-written:

Criterion 2: Verifiability

For this criterion to be met, readers must be able to verify the content of the article from reliable sources. We therefore need inline sources for all major claims in the article. Personally, I aim to have roughly one inline citation per fact presented. I will give a brief overview of the sourcing situation for the article's sections:

• "Early life": the first three paragraphs a largely unreferenced, they each cite the same reference at one point towards the middle. The reference points to a 20-page section from a book. This is too vague to help the reader verify individual facts from these paragraphs. There follows a poem with translation; no source is given. The following few paragraphs are better sourced and provide a blueprint for how this article could be improved. Int the "Poetic Tradition" subsection the article returns to citing everything from the aforementioned source.

• "Personal life": the first two paragraphs have no references whatsoever. The long third paragraph is supported by two references but its length would call for more attention to detail with regards to verifiability.

• "Notable works": the first paragraph, after starting with a good source, continues unreferenced. The second and third paragraphs appear suitably referenced.

• "Death": the above pattern continues. There is another poem without any indication of sourcing but one sentences is backed up by three sources at once.

• "In pop culture": this section, perhaps due to its recency, is generally best referenced but remains patchy with some paragraphs unsourced. The same is true of the "Filmography" section.

Criterion 4: Neutrality

This criterion specifies that the article be written in an encyclopaedic and neutral tone. As it is, there are too many places where this is not the case:

• The article's language is too flowery. Examples include: His utmost love and devotion and worship is meant for her as she embodies in herself not only the beauty of physical objects but also the sanctity of the most cherished and revered symbols of religious life., It is said that the poet was a tall, handsome man with a fair complexion, who used to cover his head with a turban and sported a long moustache extending across his face., It was during these days he tried to dabble in mystic poetry which was not, by any sketch of imagination, his forte

• In places, the article adopts an overly positive stance without citing any sources: He believed in living a free, full and inhibited life, whatever he wrote was something pure and straight from his heart, He has exhausted all beautiful names and tender epithets to address his first love.

• The articles makes unsubstantiated guesses about the subjects life: he poet, with his romantic bend of mind, must have been influenced by the abundance of natural beauty all around him, In his later life, the poet was often seen sitting alone, as if in an intoxicated state, he must have sometimes acted as a convenient instrument of all-pervasive tyranny.

Conclusion

Thank you for submitting this article to GAN. Although it does not meet the criteria at this time, there is nothing to prevent it from being rewritten and perhaps resubmitted at a later date. I would start by making sure that every single claim made in the article is supported by a reliable source. You would also do well to force yourself to write from a neutral point of few, which is an essential skill to have when editing Wikipedia. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria if you're unsure about the criteria. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)