Talk:Rabia Balkhi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Picking up this review as promised, following its abandonment by the original reviewer. Hope to have this done in the next few days. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
A few minor things, see prose comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All concerns addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I do not see any issues here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Format looks good to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Sources are reliable, primarily published books and journals. I have verified that Sharma and Losensky, the only sources I can access, verify what is cited to them. Will AGF on remaining sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Well-cited throughout, I do not find any evidence of original research. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
I have one concern. it was authors such as Attar and Jami who transformed her image into that of a mystic poet. is similar to the source wording authors such as ‘Attār in his poems and Jāmiin his biographical dictionary of Suﬁs, Nafahāt al-ons, were responsible for converting her image into that of a mystic poet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
As far as main aspects go for a very niche subject such as this one, and bearing in mind I am in no way a subject-matter expert here, I am pretty certain this covers all the main points. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
I have no concerns on this criterion. The article gives the reader a focused, measured overview of what is known of Rabia Balkhi and her influence on other poets and authors. It avoids going off-topic or giving excessive detail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I do not see any deviation from NPOV in the text of this article. It reads as an encyclopedia article should. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No issues with stability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
One photo, released into the public domain by its author. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Image shows the mausoleum where Rabia Balkhi's shrine is located. For a subject that lived this long ago, that's about the best we can hope for. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
All concerns addressed, promoting now. Good work and congratulations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

Background

~~The German Orientalist Hellmut Ritter is a WP:SEAOFBLUE. Consider rearranging the words or delinking 1 or more. I suggest delinking German.~~
~~Iranologist is linked twice here.~~
Do we have any information about different sources for her name and life? Are there conflicting accounts by different people? I'm not familiar with this topic area really at all, so if there's little known then just say so and we won't worry about it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I know, she's a very obscure figure, being one of the very few notable women in the medieval Islamic period. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

~~Women considers her to serve as a replacement for their lost voice. should be "Women consider her".~~
~~She had strong feelings to Sufism, and composed poetry in Persian and Arabic. Consider "She felt strongly about Sufism" or "She practiced Sufism".~~
The article for Awfi spells his name Aufi, is that just a different transliteration of his name?

Yep. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~She was proficient in both Arabic and Persian poetry. duplicates and composed poetry in Persian and Arabic in the previous paragraph, I recommend removing one of these.~~
~~The modern historian Sunil Sharma notes that Rabia initially starts out as non-mystic figure, Should this be "Rabia initially started out..."?~~
~~The shrine was recently renovated. Be more specific if possible. In ten or twenty years, someone won't know how long ago this happened if you do not give a date.~~
~~Sophocles and Antigone can both be wikilinked.~~

That's all I have. Placing this on hold pending responses from the nominator. It's optional, but I do have several GANs and an FAC at the moment if you feel like returning the favor. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for picking this up, Trainsandotherthings. If you don't mind, I will be striking the issues that I have fixed for practicality. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: I think that's all. I'm sorry, Trainsandotherthings, but I don't feel qualified (or perhaps not confident enough) to review GANs and especially FACs. Maybe one day. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at the instance of potential close paraphrasing I identified above? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ops, I missed that bit, my bad. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Did a lil rewrite [1], thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks acceptable to me. That was my only remaining concern so I will promote this now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noice, thanks again for the review! --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]