Talk:Fatwa/GA1

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

Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 10:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I will review this. Looks pretty up to the mark at first glance, but I will try to find some issues ;)  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 10:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking it up, ! I'll get right to it. :) Eperoton (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Misc.
 * Earwig's shows some close paraphrasing here. Please address this.
 * I've changed the highlighted phrases, except in some cases where I deliberately stayed close to the text because it conveyed a third party's argument that used distinctive or legalistic language without quoting it (which means we can't simply quote it either, since it would seem like we're quoting that third party directly). In general, I would argue that this tool isn't really tracking close paraphrase. My reading of WP:CLOP is that it's mainly about using a long stretch of text from one source, changing the wording but borrowing the overall structure, rather than about occasionally reusing short expressions from multiple sources. Especially on contentious points, short expressions are often reused verbatim based on NPOV considerations. Eperoton (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll look into the images tomorrow. This may require a bit more work. Eperoton (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Lead has too many paragraphs. Normal is up to four. I would suggest that para 3 and 4 should be merged into one.
 * Done. Eperoton (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Although its absence doesn't affect broadness (3a), I think, for the sake of completeness, it would be good to include Akhbari Shia position on Fatwa.
 * Good idea. I have a source for that. Will do tomorrow. Eperoton (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Eperoton (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It needs some clarification whether all Shia Muslims have to follow one particular Mujtahid, whose Fatwas are binding on all Shia Muslims, or one can choose to follow any of the qualified Mujatahids and then only his Fatwas become binding on the person following him. AFAIK, it is the latter case.
 * Yes, good point. Clarified. Eperoton (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please remove duplinks. Thanks.
 * Done. I'm keeping the first link after the lead per MOS:DUPLINK. Eperoton (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources
 * Gräf, Bettina (2017). Broken link.
 * Hmm, worked for me just now. Eperoton (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hallaq, Wael B. (2009). ISBN needed. Google books link would be great.
 * Hallaq, Wael B. (2010). ISBN needed. Also google books link.
 * Vikør, Knut S. (2005). ISBN needed. Google books link should be given.
 * Zürcher, Erik Jan (2016). ISBN needed.
 * I would have included ISBN for all the encyclopedias as well.
 * I've added ISBNs and URLs for the books and encyclopedia without links to an electronic version of the entry. For some the rest this is a more tricky issue. For example, for EI3 the ISBN gives the first printed edition and not the electronic edition actually used, and for some of the OUP materials the link goes to a freely available version published at Oxford Islamic Studies Online rather than to the version at Oxford Reference, which provides the ISBNs for the encyclopedias. Eperoton (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Images
 * File:Türkischer Mufti.jpg. No source link, also need US PD tag.
 * Sorry, I'm not very familiar with image tagging. I found the PD-US template page, but I'm not sure about its usage and requirements. Are you saying that PD-Old should be replaced with US-PD? Or that PD-US needs to be added somewhere? It's not clear that the image was copied online, but the bibliographical detail are in fact rather sparse. Eperoton (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WMF servers are in US, so a media being hosted there is supposed to have acceptable copyright status in country of origin as well as in US. If its PD in original country, it may not necessarily be the same in US. If it isn't one just can't use PD tag. If it is PD in original country and in US, one will have to add two tags. So you don't need to remove original tag. Just add another one saying this work is PD in US as well. For example: . But first one need to be sure it is PD in original country and in US. I can't see any info on its source; i.e who created it, where, and when. Seems like really old, but we need to have some proof.
 * I've contacted the uploader, in case they have more information. Eperoton (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The uploader says that the image comes from the the Vatican Library, and they still have a hard copy of it, but they don't have any more information besides what they provided with the original upload (over 10 years). I'm personally comfortable using this image as per MOS:IMAGES: "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken." Eperoton (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The MoS quote doesn't apply here. It just says uploader is to be trusted with their description of the "contents" of the image. Issue here is source info and copyright. If you remove this image and address the remaining (minor) issues, I will immediately pass it. I don't see any other major issues here. Even source issues highlighted above are not GA requirement ;) So overall it is GA standard IMO, except this image issue. I would prefer second opinion if you intend to keep this image. Thanks.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Image replaced. I'd like to get additional clarify on the status of this image, because I like it, but this doesn't have to hold up the review. Eperoton (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Tazkarat al-Fuqaha.jpg. Broken link.
 * Has its own page at the BL site Eperoton (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I removed original link. BL appears to be the actual source.
 * File:Tobacco Protest Fatwa issued by Mirza Mohammed Hassan Husseini Shirazi - 1890.jpg. Broken link. Also, who holds the copyright? It says copyright expired because the creator is dead, but just below that: cc-by-sa-4.0.
 * Here's the archived link. Mirza Shirazi is dead, the site seems to be a reputable academic institution and the legal notice at the bottom of the page reads "استفاده از منابع اين سايت با ذکر ماخذ مجاز است", which means "the use of resources from this site is free with an attribution to the source". It seems that the cc-by-sa-4.0 tag should simply be removed. Eperoton (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A bit complicated. How is this supposed to be PD if it requires attribution? Yes you are right. Just remove the cc-by-sa-4.0. I did some reading on the related pages. It is indeed PD and the hosting website doesn't hold the copyright of the image. As for their attribution requirement, we are providing link to their page, that's enough. Also, please update the link.
 * Thanks for looking into it. I've replaced cc-by-sa-4.0 with PD-Old and added the archived URL to the image page. Eperoton (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Ottoman declaration of Jihad 14-11-1914.jpg. I couldn't find it with the provided link. Also, without author or source info, I think it cannot be included.
 * Here's an untouched version of the same image. Is your concern with copyright or verifiability? Eperoton (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. Please replace image with this version. At least one can access the link.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Eperoton (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the issues. A nice and informative article. Pleased to Pass. Please address point 1.5 (duplinks). Thanks.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the careful review, image status research and great suggestions, ! Eperoton (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)