Wikipedia:Peer review/Averroes/archive1

Averroes

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article and I wanted to run it through peer review to see what I need to work on. Also so we can have a standard article for other wikipedia projects to translate from seeing how all of them are not up the standards that we have.

Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

Literature! Spell it with me!

• Okay, first of all, decide what he is called. The article is title Averroes, no doubt because in literature that is his common name, I suggest you stick with that primarily, and offer his name as Ibn Rushd as his Islamic or native name.
• The current lead is basically a list. While obviously there is going to have to be some lists in the lead, I suggest adding much more context, giving summaries of his views and thoughts. Per WP:LEAD you can have up to four paragraphs; I suggest you use them to the maximum effect.
• Also immediately notable is the TOC, which is not only long for any article, but long for this very short article. However, that's an easy fix that can be taken per section.
• In the name section, it would be useful to have an understanding of what the word Ibn Rushd has, if any. Also, explain why he has all these alternate names, don't just list them.
• Watch for overlinking. Almoravids is linked twice in two consecutive sections.
• "Averroes’s education followed a traditional path" Islamic tradition? Almoravid tradition?
• "It is generally believed that he was perhaps once" The amount of qualifiers that have been managed to put here is amazing. Just say some think he did etc. or something similar.
• "Throughout his life he wrote extensively on Philosophy and Religion, attributes of God, origin of the universe, Metaphysics and Psychology." This sounds like a sentence for the lead, not something that should come up near the beginning of what I assume should be a narrative section.
• Where was Averroes banished to? Source the entire last paragraph.
• As a whole, the biography section could probably be expanded, with a nice chronological description of his life events, and perhaps the different periods he worked on different subjects if applicable.
• The Works section needs some referencing. There's only one reference used throughout the entire thing, and used only a few times.
• Works has some duplication, Aristotle and Plato are discussed in the main body and in a subsection. Combine. Same with the Incoherence of the Philosophers information, and any other instances.
• Perhaps rename "System of philosophy" just "Philosophy". It needs to be sourced, and could use expansion with detail of his beliefs about different topics.
• Significance again needs to be sourced. There's one external link there, which I assume is meant to be a reference. Watch for overlinking, I don't think linking 1150 adds anything.
• The Jurisprudence and Law section seems to add nothing that couldn't be included in Biography, Works, or Beliefs. It;s unsourced anyway, so if it's not useful remove it.
• Cultural influences needs sourcing, and at any rate should be under the Significance section.
• Okay, the List of Works is currently just subsectioned out, which really bloats the TOC. I suggest just limiting the subsections to the current level two subsections, ie Logic, Philosophy of Nature, Psychology, Metaphysics, Practical Philosophy, and Mathematics. Replace the lower sections with bold text, placing a semicolon (;) before the title (as I did to head these comments). As Questions has subsections, perhaps make it a level two subsection as well.
• The Notes section should be called References.

Basically, while there is plenty of content here, it stands absolutely no chance of making it to a GA without some serious sourcing. Perhaps use the Further Reading's as sources if you have them on hand, and make sure that all the sources are formatted the same, no plain urls etc. Use WP:CT for templates if needed. Good luck, if you have questions I'm watching this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)