Wikipedia:Peer review/Mullá Husayn/archive2

Mullá Husayn

Previous peer review

I've taken this article from ~5,316 to ~56,353 over the past few weeks. Have tried to present more diverse sources than the original stub,as well as contextualizing why he is significant in the Bábí/Bahá’í religions and of interest to to others. I'd love to get it up to GA status eventually and could use help thinkign about better conforming to Wiki standards and accessibility for a general audience unfamiliar with Bábí/Bahá’í history.

Thanks, penultimate_supper (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I've been asked if I would comment on this article. I don't have time to do a detailed review, but here are a few observations that might help it on its way:

• The lead looks too short for an article of this length. The purpose of the lead is to provide a concise overview of the entire article. Everything of comsequence that is discussed in the article should be at least alluded to in the lead, and I very much doubt that that can be the case with so brief a summary.
• Parts of the article are under-referenced, if at all. There are numerous instances of paragraphs ending without a citation, sometimes entire paragraphs. The whole Mazandaran subsection lacks any citations at all. I noticed one "citation needed" tag, but there could, and indeed should, be many more.
• Some of the image licensing is questionable. You cannot claim PD on the basis of "author's life plus 70 years" when you also state "author unknown". The lead image claims PD on the grounds that "it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923" but provides no evidence to support this assumption. Likewise, Babiyyih Front.jpg and Babbiyyih Inside.jpg both carry licences asserting that "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification" – but where is the evidence for this? These images were created 86 years ago, so which "copyright holder" are you assuming? This area of the article needs some careful attention, preferably with advice from someone with images expertise.
• I noticed a number of minor format infringements in the citations, e.g. "p." for "pp." in page ranges, use of hyphen rather than ndash in page ranges, a Harvard error in ref 87, etc. I haven't carried out a complete check so there may be more.
• Book sources: a book published in 1914 (Cheyne) would not have an ISBN code – the one you show must be for a later edition. Likewise Zarandi (1932) and Sears (1960). For the Sears book, the link you provide is actually to a much later (2003) edition.

Aside from these criticisms, the article looks well thought-out and comprehensive, and certainly worth persevering with. On the face of it I think it has the potential to be an excellent GA, or even FA, with further work. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Brianboulton! These are helpful and actionable, I'm looking forward to trying to implement them, and some are a bit beyond my expertise so I really wouldn't have noticed them w/out your help. Re. copyright status of images, most of them are from The Dawn-Breakers, and in light of some confusion about their status I just wrote an email to the presumed copyright holder seeking clarification on whether it can be used. penultimate_supper (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Advise

Dear penultimate_supper thank you for giving me a chance to review your article. The article is well written, its a wonderful work done by you and article seems to be covering all the aspects of the subject but at some places references are still needed. Please follow the advice of Brianboulton above. He has guided you step by step above for the improvement of the article. Thanks Jeromeenriquez (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Jeromeenriquez, I appreciate your feedback! I'll work on the things Brianboulton mentioned. Great that you found it well written and comprehensive, those were my biggest concerns, being familiar with the subject makes it hard to know if you are writing well for general audiences. penultimate_supper (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)