Talk:Istiqlal Mosque, Jakarta/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking on this review! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
There's some good content here, and I appreciate your taking on this important article. Unfortunately, I think there are still some issues to be addressed here before this one reaches good article status, detailed below.


 * I've done a copyedit and fixed various errors through the article, but given the number I had to fix, it seems likely that some remain; you might consider requesting another copyedit before resubmitting.
 * Merdeka Square and Immanuel Church need disambiguation.


 * "each named after Al-Asmaul-Husna" -- this confused me a bit. Is the sense here "each named after one of the Al-Asmual-Husna"? Or are they all named after all of them?
 * The embedded external link to the Quran should be turned into a reference or explanatory footnote.
 * ✅ turned into reference.


 * " also Pancasila, the five principles which constitute the philosophical foundation of Indonesian nationhood" -- is it necessary to introduce what this is a second time? Seems a little reptitious.
 * ✅ choped from structure section and explained in History.


 * " the number "5" represents the Five Pillars of Islam and also Pancasila" -- the given source does not appear to support this interpretation (or indeed, to mention the mosque at all)
 * "It is 66.66 metres tall to symbolize 6,666 verses, the traditional perception of the numbers of verses in the Quran" -- the given source does not appear to support this interpretation (or mention the mosque at all)
 * "Twelve columns represent the birthday of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 12th Rabi' al-awwal." -- the given source does not appear to support this interpretation (or mention the mosque at all)
 * " The interior design is minimalist, simple and clean-cut, with a minimum of stainless steel geometric ornaments" -- this borders on interpretation/analysis and doesn't appear to have a source.
 * A number of the sources don't appear to meet standards for RSs, such as http://jakartabatavia-historicalsites.nl/, www.deleteisrael.pun.biza, http://www.sukarnoyears.com/, kempinski.com, islamicitiy.com, and about.com. Is there evidence that these meet Wikipedia standards for fact-checking and editorial oversight? It would be good to move away from so many web-based sources to include books or scholarship if possible, but failing that, I'd suggest at least moving to more clearly reliable web sources like major newspapers, etc.
 * The second paragraph of "structure" is very long; consider breaking it in two per WP:LAYOUT.
 * This paragraph appears to be a very close paraphrase of its source: "Some Muslims in Indonesia said..." This should be rewritten to avoid so closely mirroring the original's language and structure.
 * "about 20 foreign visitors have come to visit and tour the mosque" -- this is an inaccurate representation of the source, which says 20 per day (not 20 total). It's also worth noting that this statistic is probably out of date, as the article's from 2011; you might indicate in-text that this figure is old.
 * "former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi" -- this phrase is a little confusing-- surely he wasn't the former leader when he visited, right? Are all of the other titles up-to-date and still in office?
 * "There is one Grand Imam, one deputy of the Grand Imam, and seven imams in Istiqlal Mosque" -- perhaps say "seven other imams" to make it clear that the first two aren't included in the count (I assume they're not, but the current form is unclear)
 * The article is overcrowded with images (a WP:LAYOUT issue). As a rule of thumb, you don't want images opposite each other on the page. Consider moving the majority of these down to a gallery.
 * The lead should be slightly expanded to touch on all the articles sections per WP:LEAD; for example, if famous visitors and the imam each get their own section, they're almost certainly worth mentioning in the lead.

Because these issues seem that they will take some serious work to fix (particularly the reliable sources and original research/intepretation issues), I'm closing this review for now and not listing the article for GA at this time. I hope you'll continue work on it, though, using the above as a starting point. Thanks for all you do, and just let me know if there's any way that I can help. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)