User:Eliseprovident/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Abu Haggag Mosque

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article by searching the C-Class Islam-related articles page. This article caught my eye because it focuses on a 13th-century Egyptian mosque, connecting to the readings and lectures from this week. I also chose this article because it is of mid-level importance to the Egypt WikiProject. Thus, this article is more relevant to evaluate than one of low-level importance.

At first glance, I was surprised by how short the article was. Outside the lead section, the article contains three main sections: hisory, architecture, and Mawlid celebration. Each section is one or two paragraphs, only briefly touching on the relevant topics. There are also multiple dead link citations, suggesting this article is in dire need of updating.

Evaluate the article
The introductory sentence concisely describes the building type and location. The lead section also states the importance of the site, firstly as the tomb of Sheikh Yusuf Abu al-Haggag and secondly as one of the oldest continuous-use temples in the world. There is no reference to the Mawlid celebration despite it being a major section of the article.

The three sections are relevant to the topic and divide the information into useful sections. The content of the article is generally focused and relevant to the topic. The history section situates the mosque in the Ayyubid era of Egypt and briefly references its history as a Christian basilica. The next paragraph jumps to 2009, describing the restoration efforts supervised by the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. This massive jump from the 13th to 21st centuries leaves much to be desired in terms of its history, especially since the article makes such a big point about the mosque being one of the oldest continuous-use buildings in the world.

The architecture section describes the multi-use history of the temple in slightly more depth, reiterating its status as one of the oldest continuous-use buildings in the world. This section also touches on the minarets, but the description is poorly written and borders on being a run-on sentence. Here, the article finally touches on the tomb of Sheikh Yusuf Abu al-Haggag by describing its location under the dome of the mosque. Still, there is no information on the importance of Abu al-Haggag or why his tomb is within the mosque. (On the talk page, a 2020 contributor suggested removing a section on al-Haggag; this section was not removed until 2024 by another contributor. There was apparently very little deliberation in this decision.)

This lack of contextualization is particularly noticeable when reading the Mawlid celebration section. This section describes a festival entirely devoted to Abu al-Haggag at the mosque but provides no insight into why he is being celebrated there. At this point in reading the article, I also noticed the inconsistent spelling of Abu al-Haggag's name (al-Haggag, al-Hajjaj, and el-Haggag). Finally, the article claims that the festival is "habitually attended by those who hold significant governmental positions in Luxor" but does not describe the capacity in which these officials participate.

In terms of references, there are only nine sources cited. Most of these sources are Egyptian or Arab news organizations. Only one book is cited, a 2013 account of archaeologist Joann Fletcher's contested identification of Nefertiri's mummy. One of the references is a 2023 article from a travel magazine. The most credible source is an article from the University of Chicago's Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures website. Additionally, there are multiple dead link citations in the lead section and body of the article. After briefly searching JSTOR, I see there are many scholarly sources on the Luxor Temple complex that could be relevant to this article and replace the less credible sources listed. The tone of the article itself is seemingly neutral, but the sources may have some inherent biases that I cannot identify (many of them are written in Arabic).

The photo gallery provides multiple interior and exterior views of the mosque, which are helpful to those who have not or cannot visit the mosque in person.

The talk page is practically vacant. Outside the two-message exchange mentioned above, there are no discussions happening about this article. Looking at the revision history, the 2024 editor was the first person since 2021 to work on the article.

I believe this article is fairly rated as a C-Class article. The lead section is concise and compelling, but the content of the article leaves much to be desired. There are numerous gaps in the timeline that leave the reader with more questions than answers. The article also includes multiple grammatical mistakes and spelling inconsistencies. The lack of scholarly sources also limits the impact of the article. Overall, the article feels poorly developed and researched. This article definitely needs to be revisited to better describe the mosque's history, use, and importance.