Template:Did you know nominations/Islamic Center of Murfreesboro

Islamic Center of Murfreesboro

 * ... that opponents of the new mosque of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro (pictured) tried to block its construction by arguing in court that Islam was not a religion?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Temple of Amun, Jebel Barkal

Created/expanded by Prioryman (talk). Self nom at 23:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Article is new (moved from user space), quite obviously long enough, the picture license is suitable for the main page, the hook is neutrally worded. Given the length of the article, it will take me some more time to do plagiarism spot checks, and I will also need some time to make sure that everything is reasonably worded, given the potentially explosive content. --Pgallert (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism check turned up no violations. --Pgallert (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Everything else is fine, but I must admit that I do have a concern with the overall wording and presentation of the arguments about this mosque, particularly in the section "Planning controversy", and in the first paragraph of "Litigation and attacks against the ICM":
 * These sections are presented in a way that often the anti-mosque sentiments are supported by direct quotes, containing very strong statements, whereas the pro-mosque statements are much more moderate. While I can understand that there are just more strong and sensationalist quotes available for the anti--side of this conflict, I believe the WP article should not just take this coverage on board.
 * Example: arguing that "it's not a mosque for religious purposes". His remarks were strongly criticised by commentators
 * According to my interpretation of due weight, the comments pro-mosque should feature somewhat more prominently than the contra arguments, because the mosque has been built and the opponents have lost. This has been well done for the illustrations (3 neutral, 1 pro, 1 con, the pro featuring first). If I count quotes (sorry, I have to put a measure to it) then it comes out: pro 10, con 18 in the section "Planning controversy", and pro 2, con 5 in the first paragraph of "Litigation and attacks against the ICM". As such it feels a bit like, please don't take it personally, a coatrack for anti-islamic statements.
 * I suggest to shorten the sections a bit and take a few of the negative comments out; the point anyway has been made abundantly clear. --Pgallert (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that. I'll take a look at the article later today. Prioryman (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken out some of the quotes and added some more balancing quotes, as well as updating the article and fixing some sourcing issues. Prioryman (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Everything fine now, ready to go. --Pgallert (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)