Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abbey Mills Mosque/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:14, 28 May 2008.

Abbey Mills Mosque
Self-nominator. The article has been taken from a POV-problematic one that resulted in a OTRS complaint to a good article. It has had a peer review which resulted in some excellent suggestions, and has been checked for source accuracy, Manual of Style compliance, and the picture is a free-use one from Commons. I believe the article's prose is well written (although I am obviously biased) and provides a relatively complete, comprehensive, consistent, and current picture of the Mosque and the issues surrounding it, and thus I am nominating it as a featured article. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - reads well, within reasonable scope, some minor changes and it should be even better. Rudget   (Help?) 14:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I just gave it a quick read, but otherwise looks good. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A good article, but I have a few concerns:
 * Opening photo I was slightly disappointed after reading the photo caption and learning this was, in fact, not the mosque itself. At first glance one would assume this was a picture of the article's subject. I would suggest moving this photo out of the lead, to prevent any accidental misleading of the reader. If there are any other relevant photos, such as people involved with the project or whatever, I would place something like that in the lead.
 * I live in the US and cannot take a picture myself. I contacted the photographer of the pumping station photo, asking for a photo, but unfortunately he has not been able to take one yet. I could not find any other free-use photos, or fair-use for that matter, that would be appropriate as of yet. I thought the caption was sufficient to prevent any misleading of the reader. -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that it is not explicitly misleading, but IMO it is inherently misleading. You may wait for advice from other reviewers, but I still think the photo should not be in the lead section. In fact, I'm not even sure the photo should be in the article at all, but I suppose something is better than nothing. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Environment This section could use some more info. After reading the source I was informed the site is contanimated with mercury, lead, arsenic, asbestos, and other dangerous substances. It would also be nice to know why the place is contaminated. Reading the article only tells me that the site is "contaminated" and I'm left wondering "with what and why?"
 * I've enlarged that section with the pertiment information; thanks for the advice. -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Terrorism "The Tablighi Jamaat itself clearly states" are they speaking as a whole? Did they state this on a website, in a press release, or what?
 * Changed to "website". -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Third-person pronouns This article contains a few too many "Tablighi Jamaat"s which could be replaced with "it" or "they". This is especially problematic in the Terrorism and Public relations sections.
 * Replaced some TJ's with pronouns where comprehension would not be affected; thanks -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, advice, and the time! -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So far so good. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * British vs American One more tiny little thing that bothers me is the american vs british spellings. Since this article covers a british topic, I would assume one should stick to british spellings. I have changed a few things over to british but if you could check to be sure everything is correct that would be great (I have no preference as to which one you use, as long as it's consistent).
 * I'm American, so I used American spelling. I'd be happy to let someone Britishize it, as it really should have British spelling, but I'm not the person to do that :( -- Avi (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I think I pretty much fixed it. If not, I'm sure someone else will. =) --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See also I realize that See also sections are not required, but if there is anything that isn't already wikilinked in the article itself, that might be relevant to the topic, should be added, such as other failed mosque plans, other large mosques or somethng. Also I think there should be a wikilink to "muslim" somewhere in the article.
 * Re: Muslim wikilink, see second sentence -- Avi (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * lol, Sorry I'm blind. I added a see also section with a list of mosques wikilink. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I took the liberty of moving the image to a less conspicuous location. If you object then I will not push the issue any further, but this is where I think it belongs. I noticed you are practically the sole contributor to this article, good work! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice, edits, and support. Interestingly, that's about where I had the image a few weeks ago, but I was under the impression that FA's really should have an image in the upper right. De gustibus non est disputandum :-) Thanks for all of your help!! -- Avi (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Dixi! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * I have concerns about the number of statements sourced to the mosque itself.
 * This started as an OTRS complaint from the Mosque's PR firm. Therefore in the interests of NPOV, I have tried to balance every criticism with the mosque's official's responses, thereby having all sides portrayed. The best source for Tablighi Jamaat opinions on the mosque is the mosque website. -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm a bit confused about the formatting of the references. Why is there a U. S. in current ref 19 "Sachs, Susan A Muslim Missionary Group..."? Why is there a News in current ref 27 "Barney, Katherine "We don't need this Olympics ..."? other cites have similar bits in them...
 * Because it was in the US section of the Paper, and the News section of the website. -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look okay. Still on the road, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into this! -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave these out for other reviewers to see. They weren't strictly concerns, mainly queries. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've finally got around to this, weeks after Avi gave me a heads-up. My original concern was that the lead be slightly revised to reflect the Daily Telegraph article used as the prime reference for the "terrorism" connection. The lead article says that TJ is an "influence" on terrorists, not that it has links; it does use "linked" later on in the article, but with reference to two specific individuals, and then it goes on to spell out the details. I'd say, given the DT is not exactly centrist in the first place, we should be at least as careful as they are.
 * The second point is the quoting of the FBI chappie from the NYT. I don't see it as strictly useful. There's a reason: As pointed out, among other places, in, the Tablighi Jamat, being a very loose structure, is very different from one country to another, and so a comment about North America doesn't extend to Britain, with a very different context.
 * Obviously, we don't want to avoid any mention of the suspicions, but we should be careful of undue weight to this particular set of objections. It appears that these searches give a total of ten articles. Most of the objections that I have been able to find imply that the problem is not the organisation but some of the individuals attracted to it, and the objections to the mosque are framed in that light.
 * Minor quibbles, therefore, easily fixed. Otherwise, OK. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, the "Terrorism" section is poorly done since it doesn't really relate it to the Mosque controversies... also, some of the passive voice is a little worrisome. It should be mentioning the group in light of the controversy not "The group has also been referred to as"... gren グレン 04:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I started a copy-edit of the article, (which it needs badly), but I rolled it back. I have issues with the article which mainly stem from the fact that it's not about a mosque, but a failed application to build one. This has resulted in the tenses and moods going all over the place. More worrying is the neutrality of the article; I got a strong impression of an attempt, (which may be sub-conscious), to influence any future applications. Many things remain unclear; was an application for planning permission submitted, was it rejected if so why, has a revised application been submitted? Here are some related concerns:
 * In the lead The mosque will be built by.., but later on we read the building's future remains uncertain - And the building doesn't exist yet.
 * increasing the mosque's recycling - Is the mosque going to be recycled?
 * Reports as to the size of the mosque have varied considerably. - The mosque does not exist, 'proposed size?
 * land upon which the Abbey Mills Mosque is supposed to be built is considered .. - this should be proposed to be built.
 * as such wrt decommissioning is redundant.
 * Report revealed that the original pre-remediation works had discovered soil and groundwater impact by mercury, lead, arsenic, oil, fuels, and asbestos fibres - What does impact mean in this context, contamination?
 * The neutrality of the Terrorism section is a big worry. The Tablighi Jamaat website clearly states that it refrains from political or controversial activities and stands for democracy and freedom. - and - The group describes itself as a non-political group and categorically rejects any links to terrorism or terrorists. This article is far from FA quality. Graham Colm Talk 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, why is "clearly" a neutrality rather than stylistic problem.? -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—oh, this is messy. Bad writing and POVish in its whole rationale. I didn't look closely at more than the lead, but it fails just on that.
 * To start with, it's way overlinked. Why "controversy", for example? Please audit. TONY   (talk)  09:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Public response to the mosque and associated controversies has included on-line petitions,[7] various public talks, debates, speeches, and websites, and even apparent threats against people opposing the mosque." This is not a good sentence. "Public response to controversies"? I'd have thought controversies were a response. Threats are public response (rather than resulting from it?)—how public are they? The list items don't all belong together. Remove "various", for lord's sake.
 * The building's future has neither a current plan permission ...?  TONY   (talk)  10:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "a permission" is unidiomatic; so is "plan permission".
 * I don't see any POV complaints in that list...? -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.