- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by sst✈discuss 09:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Al-Istibsar
edit- ... that Al-Istibsar is one of the four major works of Shiite Islamic traditions authored by Shaykh Tusi, a Shia scholar?
- ALT1:... that Al-Istibsar is a major work of Shiite Islamic Tradition by Shia scholar Shaykh Tusi, and is a summary of his book Tahdhib al-Ahkam?
5x expanded by Saff V. (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC).
Expansion and length are good. Your inline citation, however, seems to say it is the third book in the collection. I'd reword the hook to say it is a "book", rather than a collection, to avoid confusion, and would also remove the word "great" as I think that's POV. Also where is you QPQ? Freikorp (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The hook is cited and the QPQ is not needed. Though i'm afraid this article may need re-writing to appear on the main page. The grammar is difficult to understand at times. I have reworded this where possible however have been unable to do this at certain points as I am unsure what is trying to be said. For example "In specific print of book, 5558 Hadiths have been reported that is caused by manner of counting" – I have an idea of what this might be trying to say, but since the source is in Arabic and I can't read it I don't feel comfortable rewording it in case my understanding is incorrect. I'm also not sure if the formatting is appropriate. The article seems to focus more on the history of the author than the actual subject of the article, and information in the author section seems to be duplicated in the background section. This one may need attention from someone who is more experienced in the subject area. My changes to the article can be seen here. Freikorp (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I assume good faith over this old nomination, article is long enoug with 2992 characters and newly expanded when nominated. Copyvio is unlikely, only a quote is copied from source, its ok for quote in quotebox. Some copy-edit has been done by another editor. Original hook is interesting and sourced. Article is also interesting. As earlier reviewer said experienced editor is needed for this, I don't claim myself expert but I do edit Islam related topics and I have some study of it as hobby. Its already been 1 month since last review. We may not get proper expert, but article seems ok to me. Moreover, we do have some leeway for new articles nominated for DYK, it is not necessary that newly nominated article should be perfect. I think it is good to go. --Human3015TALK 07:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
