Talk:Ali/GA1


 * Note: This review is also archived at Talk:Ali/Archive_5

GAR: On Hold

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

I will check for "well written." after the League of copyeditors goes through it. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * What's your problem with Manual of Style?-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * ✅The part which included fact tags was not important. I moved it to a sub-article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I've written all of the viewpoints about his role in Uthman's murder. This issue is his most important accusation which his enemies use against him and even curse him. The other issues are not necessarily negative. For example he was one of the guy who kills many Arab pagans. I tried to clarify this issue. Or I've written Madelung says Ali deeply convinced of his right and his religious mission, unwilling to compromise his principles for the sake of political expediencey, ready to fight against overwhelming odds. I think this article is more neutral than what you can find in Britaica.-- Seyyed(t-c) 15:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I read Ali's entry of "Islam and the Muslim world", an article which is written by a non-Muslim, and found it has glorified him too more than this one. However you can read the encyclopedic articles and compare them with this one.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

07:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ref 15, ref 134, ref 50, 97, 92, 94, 91, 88, 85(Nahj Al-Balagha Sermons 22, 136, Letter 37) and all other refs from http://www.nahjulbalagha.org are dead internet links. Most of them citations to quotes.--Redtigerxyz (talk)
 * I've just added them for clarification. It's written in WP:MOSISLAM that Editors can not use primary sources to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. But it's good idea to add Qur'an and Hadith to clarify the issue. So God willing I'll check the cases which you've mentioned on the basis of this manual of style.-- Seyyed(t-c) 09:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ref 43[allaahuakbar.net/] is not a reliable source.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ref 42 doesn't seem to be reliable too.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Arabic verses are references for English quotes. The English referenced translations are needed.
 * Arabic sites are used as references, when "an English-language source of equal quality" seemed to be present. Please add English references. See Verifiability.
 * Note:Please pay attention to WP:REF. There is written.

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it."-- Seyyed(t-c) 08:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it., which are not given, e.g. ref 104.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I just found two cases and added Persian texts in footnote and replaced the other sources with English ones.-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Many primary sources used, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing unacceptable sources
 * I remove unacceptable sources on the basis of this edition.-- Seyyed(t-c) 09:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

was removed. ✅-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ref number 15
 * ref number 42, I added reliable source.
 * ref number 63, I added reliable source.
 * ref number 43 and 134, I replaced it with a verifiable one.
 * ref number 48 and 50, please pay attention to the link to the google book. It doesn't have any problem.
 * ref number 68: This sermon exists in al-Tabari and Madelung refer to it in footnote of his book.
 * I removed all of the links to Nahj al-Balagha except the reliable one.


 * Pictures:I clarified the caption of Image:Panjetan.jpg and moved Image:Imam Ali Series.jpg to a new sub-article. But can't we keep Image:The Message - Muslim Warriors.jpg?-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I really liked the fact the authors had written the article so non-expert or non-Muslim can understand Islamic terms like "Rashidun (Rightly Guided Caliph)", "Islamic prophet Muhammad", though there are still some Islamic terms, whose breif description can be given for jargon like Ahl al-Bayt etc.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me the other unfamiliar expressions. -- Seyyed(t-c) 04:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sunni Muslims revere him as the fourth and final Rashidun (Rightly Guided Caliph), reigning from 656 to 661. Shi'a Muslims glorify Ali as the first infallible Imam and consider him and his descendants as the rightful successors to Muhammad. This disagreement resulted in the Muslim community being split into the Sunni and Shi'a branches" which disagreement ???--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Shias belive in him as Imam while Sunnis do not. You mean we should clarify more?-- Seyyed(t-c) 10:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Write "Shi'a Muslims glorify Ali as the first infallible Imam and consider him and his descendants as the rightful successors to Muhammad, while Sunnis disagree."--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We still need to mention the Sunni position. I'd write "Shi'a Muslims glorify Ali as the first infallible Imam and consider him and his descendants as the rightful successors to Muhammad. Sunnis take a different position, revering him as the fourth and final Rashidun (Rightly Guided Caliph)."Bless sins (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a better suggestion.-- Seyyed(t-c) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "For three years Muhammad invited people to Islam in secret. Then he started inviting people publicly. When, according to the Qur'an, he was commanded to invite his closer relatives to come to Islam[19] he gathered the Banu Hashim clan in a ceremony and told them clearly that whoever would be the first to accept his invitation would become his successor and inheritor. Ali, who was 13 or 14 years old at that time, stepped forth and embraced Islam. This invitation was repeated three times but only Ali answered Muhammad. Muhammad accepted Ali's submission to the faith and thus fulfilled his promise." Shouldn't this be in 'Conversion to Islam'?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he was Muslim at that time. He declared that he helped and supported the Prophet(PBUH) in his mission. I try to clarify the issue.-- Seyyed(t-c) 10:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅-- Seyyed(t-c) 08:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This para "Muhammad then made a public declaration and the struggle between Muslims and pagans started. As the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to local tribes and the rulers of Mecca. Muhammad’s denunciation of the Meccan traditional religion was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Kaaba. So they persecuted Muslims. According to the tradition, the leaders of two important Quraysh clans - Banu Makhzum and Banu Abd-Shams - declared a public boycott against their commmercial rival Banu Hashim in order to put pressure on the clan. At this time, Muhammad arranged for some of his followers to emigrate to Ethiopia. The boycott lasted for three years. Ali stood firmly in support of Muhammad during the years of persecution of Muslims and boycott of Banu Hashim in Mecca" does not say anything about Ali. A WP:UNDUE, not focussed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I moved some part of this paragraph to Meccan boycott of the Hashemites. God willing I'll add some information about Ali's role.-- Seyyed(t-c) 11:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Another reference to their simple existence comes to us from the "Tasbih of Fatima", a divine formula that was first given to Fatima when she asked her father for a kaneez (servant girl) in order to help her with household chores. Her father (Muhammad) asked her if she would like a gift instead that was better than a servant and worth more than everything in the world. Upon her ready agreement, he told her to recite to end every prayer with the Great Exaltation "Allahu Akbar" 34 times, the Statement of Absolute Gratitude "Alhamdu-LilLah" 33 times and the Invocation of Divine Glory "Subhaan Allah" 33 times, totalling 100. This collective prayer is called the Tasbih of Fatima. " another case of not focussed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we can move the issue to the sub-article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 10:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I moved it to Fatimah Zahra.-- Seyyed(t-c) 11:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The incident of Mubahala" has a 1 line reference of Ali in a 7-line para, why is the background of the incident be given. Remove WP:UNDUE details, Suggestion merge with some other section.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to improve it. Does it satisfy you. However I think the background is necessary to clarify the issue. -- Seyyed(t-c) 14:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅-- Seyyed(t-c) 08:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

At the rate the nominator has replied to my queries, i think i would never have to put this article on hold. Kudos.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The third caliph Uthman Ibn Affan expressed generosity toward his kin, Banu Abd-Shams, who seemed to dominate him and his supposed arrogant mistreatment toward several of the earliest Companions such as Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Abd-Allah ibn Mas'ud and Ammar ibn Yasir provoked outraged among some group of people. Dissatisfaction and resistance had openly arisen since 650-651 CE throughout most of the empire.[62] The dissatisfaction with his regime and the governments appointed by him was not restricted to the provinces outside Arabia.[63] When Uthman's kin, especially Marwan, gained control over him, the noble companions including most of the the members of elector council, turned against him or at least withdrew their support putting pressure on the caliph to mend his ways and reduce the influence of his assertive kin.[64] Finally, dissatisfaction led to rebellion in Egypt, Kufa and Basra. At the start of the rebellion, people demanded that the exiled be returned to their homes, the deprived be provided sustenance, the men of strength and integrity be appointed as governors, and so on.[65]" This can be shortened.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view this issue is too important and I've summarized about 20 pages in 12 lines. This part has connotation to Ali(the members of elector council) and relates to what has been described later.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the infobox have the img of Ali (available in Muslim view), rather than his tomb?
 * You can see the former discussion about using Ali image here. I think this will lead to controversy and editorial war. -- Seyyed(t-c) 14:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the tomb is an object of veneration of Ali (which makes him so notable), not the image.Bless sins (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you.-- Seyyed(t-c) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some dispute about the tomb, so the tomb as the infobox pic is like giving that POV a thumps-up, which would not be neutral.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which dispute do you mean?-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Most Shias" believe that infobox mosque is Ali's tomb. Not all. Candidate 2 is the Afghan mosque. Thus dispute.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's there for about one year but nobody has challenged it, but whenever we put the portrait there, we had a lot of problem. I think it's not the issue which relates to GA review. Please let me not change the place of picture. -- Seyyed(t-c) 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Though length is not a criterion for GAN, i suggest, assuming a near WP:FAC, PLEASE try to reduce length to something like 60-70 KB as 95KB is TOO LONG. Don't want to hurt the authors but sincerely, at times i was exhausted going through this long article and just felt like not reading ahead.
 * I have really neglected too many issues and move a lot of information to the sub-article to reduce the size of the article. Please pay attention to the sub-articles.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to reduce the size of the article and it's not too long. However Mpatel is working on it.-- Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Continue your good work.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave note on my talk, when the changes are done. Ideally, the article will remain on hold not over 7 days.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * GA-FAIL: Jargon like hadith, Muhajirun et. need to be explained. al-shia.com, non-RS, still used as ref. Some parts needs to cleaned up and/or reduced significantly per MP. And considering concerns expressed about equal representation of Shia-Sunni views, thus Neutrality issues

and other issues in "An outside view", Failing the article. The nominator is welcome to get a reassessment.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

An outside view
As I noted above, I have substantial concerns over the neutrality of this article which I think is too Shia-centric in its perspective and historical narrative.

Almost every passage dedicates a substantial amount of attention to the Shi'a perspective, forgetting that this viewpoint is a comparatively minor one as compared to Sunni perspective or academic perspective. While there should be a presentation of the Shi'i view of Ali, it certainly shouldn't saturate and overwhelm the article. As I skim through this article, much of what I see is devoted to interjections about what Shias think, events according to Shia sources, incidents covered extensively because they relate to Shia claims, and implicitly, why the Shia view is right. Please see WP:UNDUE in that regard. For that very reason, a lot of content is dedicated to those incidents which support or promote Shia claims (Mubahala, Ghadir Khumm, etc.), and there is an infatuation will all of these unencyclopedic "Hadith of..." articles which were mainly created for the same purpose. There is an attempt to contrast it with Sunni views in places, but it really doesn't make for pleasant reading, and doesn't detract from the fact that the article fails to provide a professional and balanced coverage.

The tone of the prose does not appear to be dispassionate: it frequently comes across as reverential. For example, "... he gathered the Banu Hashim clan in a ceremony and told them clearly that whoever would be the first to accept his invitation would become his successor and inheritor." - This passage is sourced to Shia authors Tabatabae and Ashraf, and clearly designed to promote Ali's claim of successorship and the Shia perspective of events. I doubt you'll find very many academic reliable sources declaring the matter in such unequivocal terms. The least that can be said about it is that it's disputed. "Ali was the first male to enter Islam.[5][1][7][17]" - There is in fact long standing dispute in scholarship on this aspect; some say Zayd bin Harithah was the first male convert, some say Abu Bakr, and others say Ali. Another example: "According to historical reports, Ali continued to assert that the caliphate was his right and said:", followed by a blockquote sourced to a Shia collection known as Najh al-Balagha ("nahjulbalagha.org")- which, as I said earlier, is not a reliable source in this article. Yet it's given a blockquote and called a historical account despite disputes in academia over its authenticity (and no mention of such at all in the respective section). The article is rampant with this kind of skew unfortunately and I have provided only a fraction of the possible examples.

In order to meet GA criteria (especially on neutrality), I believe the article really needs to clear out the partisan sources in totality, use academic sources in an appropriate, responsible manner (and not just as and when they make convenient claims/points), and provide a fair and balanced account of the associated views about Ali, without letting them overwhelm the entire article.  ITAQALLAH  20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything which is based on the partisan sources. I really try to use academic sources. I used Encyclopaedia of Holy Prophet and Companions which is clearly a Sunni source in many cases. However if Sunnis didn't participate and added their ideas, I couldn't do anything. I tried not to inserted Shia tendencies. I haven't inserted Shia viewpoit about Ali's supernatural characteristics. I haven't inserted Shia viewpoint about his sorrow in the community. I haven't inserted Shia viewpoint about his position in rising Islam. I've done my best to use academic and non-partisan sources and I think it's your duty to participate in the article and make it more NPOV. However it's not my fault that Sunnis don't participate and it's not my fault that western scholars such as Madelung and Dakake who work in the field of early caliphate says something which contradicts with Sunny beliefs. It's not my fault that wester encyclopedia such as Iranica and Britannica are more compatible with Shia view. This is academic viewpoint that Ali believe his superiority and right to successorship. based on western scholars researches. -- Seyyed(t-c) 02:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC) .-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of Shaqshaqie which I narrated from Nahj al-Balagha, I referenced to a list of Sunni and Shia works which have narrated this sermon. Nahjul Balagha, Mohammad Askari Jafery (1984), pp. 108-112. However I removed all of the other links to Nahj al-Balagha. -- Seyyed(t-c) 02:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the way in which the sources have been handled is not balanced, and that's the impression I get when you talk about the prime sources in this article being "more compatible with Shia view" (is that why they were used?). It's one thing writing about something mentioned in an academic source, it's another thing altogether when you give it undue weight. That's what I feel is happening with certain areas of the article where a very Shia-centric focus is given. I'm not faulting you for anything, I'm simply saying that this article is quite slanted in my opinion. Source usage in certain areas is inadequate, irrespective of whether they are Sunni or Shia. You seem to believe it's an issue of Sunni vs. Shia, and this I think highlights the fundamental problem with this article.  ITAQALLAH   12:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course the article is the result of my viewpoint, not necessarily Shia one, duo to the fact that other wikipedians haven't participated in it. In my view Siege of Uthman is more important than Battle of Nahravan so I explain it more. In my view Ali's knowledge is more important than his power. So I explain it more.
 * Frankly, I didn't ask you and the other guys to help me with the article!!! I can't edit the article on behalf of you. However when I compare the article with Britannica, Iranica and other encyclopedias, it satisfies me. You can sure that not only you but many Shias believe that the article is quite slanted. I hope you and the other guys who believe so come and participate in the editing instead of writing An outside view.-- Seyyed(t-c) 13:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note:Ashraf is Sunni and he didn't designed to promote Ali's claim of successorship. Tabatabae is an authentic scholar who narrates from Sunni and Shia sources. His view is authentic as well as Mudelung. However whenever I've narrate something especially from him, tried to write The Shi'a believe or Tabatabaei says. In other cases such as Ali's belief about his right and superiority he's just one of the scholars who says the same thing. -- Seyyed(t-c) 13:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sections that can be shortened a fair bit
I believe the following (sub-)sections (and possibly more) can be cleaned up (C) and/or reduced significantly (R) either by rewording or moving parts of text to other articles:


 * Succession to Muhammad - C/R
 * Siege of Uthman - C/R
 * Election as Caliph - C
 * Reign as Caliph - C
 * First Fitna -C/R

I will try to clean these up as much as I can. I invite others to help. Please take a look at: User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, especially 'Eliminating redundancy' and 'Achieving flow'. I took a very brief look at these and it works wonders! MP (talk•contribs) 09:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've recently moved all of them except the first one to the sub-articles. So feel free to shorten them. Please maintain the major points while you reduce them. -- Seyyed(t-c) 11:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was necessary to completely revert the changes I made to Succession to Muhammad. For example, in places the text still seems overly detailed and the grammar is still substandard. I think that if reverts are made, they should be done judiciously. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 12:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see this. I copied your edition in here. God willing I want to clarify the Shia and Sunni positions about successorship more.-- Seyyed(t-c) 13:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I also have another issue; you reverted edits in other sections too! I invite you to check this. That's why I just reverted back to my last version. MP (talk•contribs) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If I made a mistake, then you made too.-- Seyyed(t-c) 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The edits I made to Succession to Muhammad removed a fair bit of repetition. Historical details such as where the vote was taken to nominate Abu Bakr are clearly irrelevant and can be written more generally in much fewer words. I did the same with other sentences. The link you provided above didn't explain anything about my edits. By the way, I think that I still kept the sources (refs.).MP (talk•contribs) 13:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First Fitna is not too long. In fact it includes three major battles, arbitrations and plunders. -- Seyyed(t-c) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point; the intention is to shorten the article by tightening up on the grammar and removing (possibly moving to other articles) details that are irrelevant to the article. The intention is not to chop things down willy-nilly just for the sake of reducing kilobytes. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)