User:Integers derivatives/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hadith terminology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am currently taking a course on the Golden age of Islam and I want to know more surrounding the topic of Hadith, and thus Islamic practices.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is concise and clear as to what topic will be covered in the article. It gives a good overveiw on what the Hadith even is. However, the lead section does not explain what exactly will be covered in the article or the sections of the article.

The content is clear and gives a lot of information about the topic. However, there is not a clear distiction around the use of Hadith with both the Sunni and Shiite; this comes from the addition of the section "Sunni hadith terminology literature", while there has not been a distiction of Shiite literature or the differences in Sunni and Shiite terminology. This article also has not been updated since 2010, thus there could be more information around this topic.

The article does have a very nuetral tone and simply gives facts about the terminology surounding Hadith. There is only the slight confusion that I have mentioned before. The information presented is given simply and without the appereance of bias. As for the sources, there are many, a total of 25, and some have been published by people from the 12th century. The rest appear to be from either the 20th or 21st century. Most of the authors where scholars of Islam and the Hadith.

This article has done well with breaking up the different types of terminology surrounding the Hadith, which in turn gives a thorough context for the Hadith. There appear to be no spelling errors.

The main image is the break down of the classification of Hadith, however without prior context this can be hard to fully understand. Other than that there are no images other. I am unsure how they could be used in the article.

In the talk page there is a discussion around the removal of a part of the article that had a secific point of view. However, the talk page gets slightly heated. This is the only discussion. The article is rated B-class and Mid-importance.

Overall, this article is very clear and concise. The format is good but there are a few things that could be better. The conversation in the talk page has some hostility. There is also a need for a few things to be clearer on how the terminology is used.