Talk:Al-Kindi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Okay, I'm going to review this GA nom. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support This article seems to meet all the criteria for a good article. In fact, I would go as far as to say, it is a good candidate for featured article. lk (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I looked over the article, and I'm going to ask for another opinion. The only problem I would work on would be beginning a sentence with a conjunction (and, but). Try replacing them with "In addition" or combining the sentence with the sentence in front of it with a semicolon. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Was there anything specific that made you unsure as to why to pass/fail? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add to my previous comment. The content seems to be all there, and there are no problems with style, presentation or NPOV. However, the flow of the language is sometimes strange and a bit idiosyncratic. I think a once over by an editor with a good grasp for grammar is all that is needed to make this article shine. lk (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup lk said what I meant. Sorry for not being too specific. It looks like lk took care of a lot of the copyediting stuff, and so it's almost ready for GA, except for:
 * In Astrology, finish the sentence "However, when it comes to the actual process by which the heavenly bodies affect the material world" in the second paragraph. :)
 * Question: in Philosophy, you write "And while his philosophical approach was not always original, and was even considered clumsy by later thinkers (mainly because he was the first philosopher writing in the Arabic language)". That last bit sounds a little like defending the guy, which is not NPOV. But I could be reading it wrong. Is this fact backed up by a ref?

Tell me when you've fixed these problems and you've read the entire thing over it at least once (I don't want to miss something and get yelled at ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the article as it is listed for a second opinion at WP:GAN. I think it fulfills the GA criteria so I support its passing. However, the incomplete sentence that Intothewoods29 highlights above should be taken care of. As for Intothewoods29's second example, I would just get rid of the bracketed material. Also, accessdate= parameters should be added to the online citations. --maclean 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it depends on whether you are thinking of going to FAC. The article is overwikilined (only the first mention of a topic, place, etc. should be wikilinked) and needs drastic editing of unnecessary words. For example, in the lead you say he is a polymath so you don't have to list every accomplishment there, when you have sections below that cover that. It is a very interesting article. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I copy edited the lede to be more in line with FAC, if that is where you are heading, to give you an idea of what I meant above. I mostly removed unnecessary words. Feel free to revert if you do not approve. I think the article meets to GA criteria. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 14:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out! :) It's always less stressful for me to pass a GA when someone with a lot more expertise has given the okay. I'll see if I can contact the editors who nominated this so we can fix the last few sentences and get it off of WP:GAN. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a polite recommendation, it seems like this nomination should be switched to "On Hold" since a second opinion has been provided. This will insure that nobody takes the unnecessary time to navigate here hoping to provide a second opinion, only to find that this has already been done. Of course, this issue is not significant in the least in the scope of things; it just seems like it would be courteous to provide the proper status. Thanks, and sorry for the intrusion. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 18:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - "However, when it comes to the actual process by which the heavenly bodies affect the material world." Incomplete sentence. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much all that's keeping this article from GA status... *taps foot impatiently* Below I've compiled a list of things that need to be done by a primary contributer or a bold editor:


 * In Astrology, finish the sentence "However, when it comes to the actual process by which the heavenly bodies affect the material world" in the second paragraph. :)
 * Question: in Philosophy, you write "And while his philosophical approach was not always original, and was even considered clumsy by later thinkers (mainly because he was the first philosopher writing in the Arabic language)". That last bit sounds a little like defending the guy, which is not NPOV. But I could be reading it wrong. Is this fact backed up by a ref? (Maclean has suggested that you should get rid of the stuff in parenthesis).
 * Add |accessdate= to cite web refs if not already done

And that's it! Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. I've re-worded that part in the Astrology section to make more sense, removed the bracketed comments in the Philosophy section, and added cite web templates for the remaining web references. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Great thanks. I think that covers it, so I'll promote this GAN. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)