Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam/archive1

Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam

 * Nominator(s): MartinPoulter (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I do a lot of work trying to urge cultural institutions (GLAMs) to share content with Wikimedia. One promising approach is to find a public exhibition that has been thoroughly documented and has attracted a lot of third-party coverage, then to summarise its content and reception with a Wikipedia article and Commons category. I'm lucky enough to be a Wikimedian In Residence, so I've written this on paid time (as I declare on my user page), and my host institution has freely shared images of objects that were exhibited. I think this is some of my best wiki work and hope the attention given this article will persuade more museums to share images. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

SC
Putting down a marker: will be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Link the Kaaba?
 * done
 * "by the then Prince Charles": just "by Prince Charles"
 * done
 * Preparation and launch
 * The two red-linked people: are they notable enough for their own articles (I ask from a position of complete ignorance of either of them). If you think they are notable, then that's fine. (Ditto for Ayman Yossri further down the page.)
 * I've un-red-linked Qaisra Khan. I'm more confident that Venetia Porter deserves her own article. Ayman Yossri seems as notable as the other artists in that list of contemporary artists. This isn't based on a thorough search for sources so I'm persuadable either way about the notability of these people.
 * "40 collections from 14 countries contributed more than two hundred objects": per MOS:NUMNOTES, this should either be "40 collections ... 14 countries ... 200 objects" or "forty collections ... fourteen countries ... two hundred objects"
 * done: using numerals consistently in both parts of the article that mention these numbers
 * The then Prince Charles gave": just "Prince Charles gave"
 * done
 * "on 26 January.": as it's in a section where the only other year was 2010, you should probably add a year here.
 * done
 * Related exhibitions
 * If we have "Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam" and" Hajj: The Journey through Art", why does "Longing for Mecca: The pilgrim's journey" also not have a capitalised sub-title?
 * done: It was that way in source, but I've now capitalised the sub-title for consistency.
 * Refs
 * A lot of the refs have "language=en" or similar. We shouldn't include the language field if it is in English, only other language.
 * done
 * FN 50: (february 2019 – january 2020) should be capitalised, regardless of the original
 * done
 * You should check the capitalisation on the references and sources and make them consistent
 * Here I welcome more specific advice. The Berns paper is titled "Hajj journey to the heart of islam"; the Berns thesis chapter is titled "Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam". The Porter book is titled "Hajj: journey to the heart of Islam". Are you giving me the go-ahead to capitalise these the same way? Are there other inconsistencies I'm missing? Spacing before colons wasn't consistent and that's now been fixed.
 * (Note to co-ords: this is not a source review, just a few things that caught my eye)

That's it from me. I saw the exhibition when it was on, so it was good to read this and catch up on some of the background. – SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks SchroCat for these corrections. I didn't attend the exhibition myself, so it's good to have the input of someone who did. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Good article that reads rather well. Based on prose only. (It's a shame you missed it - it was a truly superb exhibition!) - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques". Shouldn't that be a lower-case initial c per MOS:JOBTITLES. Similarly in the main article.
 * done
 * "the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, Arab World Institute in Paris, National Museum of Ethnology in Leiden, and Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam". Why are the last three missing definite articles?
 * done: articles added
 * If Venetia Porter is red linked at first mention in the article, she should also be in the lead.
 * done
 * Several References seem to be missing (available) publisher locations.
 * done for all books
 * All foreign language words and phrases should be in lang templates.
 * done, except I'm having trouble with the phrase "ihram clothing": the whole phase is wiki-linked but just the first word is of Arabic derivation. This markup ihram clothing doesn't seem to work in the article and yet it works here. I'm stumped- advice welcome.
 * P.S. Oxford English Dictionary, Collins Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster say "ihram" is an English word in its own right (a loanword, like "hajj") so I think it's okay to leave without the language tag. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "trek across desert or ocean". I am not sure that "trek across ... ocean" works.
 * done: now "journey"
 * "which help devotees turn towards the city for prayer". Perhaps unpack a little further why this happens?
 * done: added an extra bit of text to that sentence with a new supporting ref.
 * "The king of Bone's diary". Should that not be an upper-case K?
 * done
 * "show that a hajj has been completed". 'showing'?
 * done
 * "to show how the Masjid al-Haram has been modernised". A brief note of what the "Masjid al-Haram" is?
 * done
 * done: replaced
 * "an exhibition catalogue that also includes". "that" → 'which'.
 * done
 * "The Khalili Collection of Hajj and the Arts of Pilgrimage". Should that be in italics?
 * In the context in which it's used, it refers to the collection, not to a publication about the collection, so I think it's correct as it is?
 * Why is Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam presented in italics, but the titles of other exhibitions in inverted commas? Why are some presented in title case and others in sentence case?
 * Why is Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam presented in italics, but the titles of other exhibitions in inverted commas? Why are some presented in title case and others in sentence case?
 * Thanks for finding the relevant guidance on this: all exhibition titles, including the article title, are now presented without quotes or italics. Capitalisation follows the way exhibition titles are capitalised in the source. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the nudge- the initial notification of your post got swamped in my watchlist! Hugely grateful for the suggestions: I've fixed a number of these just now and I'll have time to address the rest (and report here) early next week. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * One question for now: there's a case inconsistency in capitalisation of exhibition titles (your last point) between Hajj: The Journey through Art and Longing for Mecca: The pilgrim’s journey because that's how they are capitalised in this source. I'm not sure whether consistency with the source or consistency within the article is more important. What do you recommend? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the MoS trumps everything, so I shall investigate and report back. Note the comment above in green which does not seem to have been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, every day is a school day. See MOS:NEITHER: "There are cases in which titles should not be in italics nor in quotation marks ... Exhibitions, concerts, and other events: the world's fairs, Expo 2010, Cannes Film Festival, Burning Man, Lollapalooza". So I am afraid it would seem that they all need taking out of italics, including the article title! (But please don't change the article title until this nomination is closed and the bot has done its thing.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at the issues surrounding italics and exhibition titles recently, in discussions at WT:VAMOS and WT:MOSTITLE. I'm afraid the reference to exhibitions at MOS:NEITHER is poorly worded, because you'll see that on the same page, under MOS:ITALICTITLE, is the instruction to use italics for "Named exhibitions (artistic, historical, scientific, educational, cultural, literary, etc. – generally hosted by, or part of, an existing institution such as a museum or gallery), but not large-scale exhibition events". So Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam is the kind of exhibition title that should have italics, with MOS:NEITHER being reserved for really big or recurring exhibitions: Great Exhibition, Exposition Universelle (1889), World's Columbian Exposition, Royal Academy Summer Exhibition, Venice Biennale.
 * The other two exhibition titles mentioned above should be styled Hajj: The Journey Through Art, per MOS:5LETTER, and Longing for Mecca: The Pilgrim's Journey, per MOS:TITLECAPS. Ham II (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm so grateful to you for sorting this out and I've made the required changes to the article. This makes a lot of sense, and I'll familiarise myself with these bits of the MOS. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Harry
Hi, great to see you at FAC! This looks in good shape to me (as somebody who knows nothing about the subject). Just a few comments: —HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe retitle the first section to "background" or "background: the Hajj" for standardisation and so the the reader knows what to expect?
 * done
 * There had been no previous museum exhibitions devoted to the hajj Really? None? Ever? I'd want a stronger source than the grauniad for a claim like that per WP:REDFLAG.
 * Foulds in The Diplomat (ref 12 in the current version) calls it the "first major exhibition to focus on the Hajj" and Akbar in The Independent (ref 32 in the current version) calls it the "world's first comprehensive show on the hajj". Considering the three references together, it seems fair to say that this exhibition was the first in some important sense, but there could have been "minor" or "non-comprehensive" exhibitions beforehand. So the existing wording needs to change. Would it be enough for me to introduce "major" into the sentence so it's less absolute?
 * I'd be happier with those refs attached to the sentence and the addition of the word "major". Not that I don't trust the Guardian, but the entire field of human history seems a little beyond its area of expertise. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 11:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * done
 * The British Museum's planning for its exhibition spanned a two year period Since you're using the time period as an adjective (a compound adjective at that), you need a hyphen (as in two-year)
 * done
 * I'd suggest aligning the gallery to the centre if it's not too tricky to do.
 * done
 * The museum responded that the Saudi royal family had not funded the exhibition and had no curatorial control. Did they say why they decided to omit the aspects in question?
 * The simple answer is that the exhibition was about the devotees' experience of the hajj. This is implicit in a lot of the reviews and maybe it's too implicit in this article. In the Kashmir Observer piece covering the museum's response to the criticism (ref 11 in the current version), the project curator Qaisra Khan is quoted as saying "what we were trying to do [...] was to display and demonstrate this very personal, spiritual journey. It wasn't about the politics of it." I'm wary of changing the balance of text in this section about the controversy; do you want me to add more about the curators' intentions?
 * You quote a few reviews. Were there any reviews of the reviews or anything that analyses the general consensus of the reviewers?
 * I haven't found anything like that in my many searches. That's partly why I've quoted so many different reviews in the article. I think I'm very safe in calling the reviews as a whole "favourable".
 * Delighted to hear from you and have your input, Harry. Hope you're well. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to support. Hopefully we'll see you at FAC more often! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_mss_0097_fol_9b-10a.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_Mss_1025_fol_15a_CROP.jpg, File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_ARC.al_0001.09.jpg, File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_mss_0745_fol_1_CROP.jpg, File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_Mecca_panorama.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks . Take a look at File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_mss_0745_fol_1_CROP.jpg: is that the sort of thing that's needed? If so, I'll apply it to the other manuscript images. The US tags seem to require that the work itself be registered before a certain date, when the free rationale for most of these images is that the objects themselves are centuries old. Now I look more closely at File:Khalili Collection Hajj and Arts of Pilgrimage ARC.al 0001.09.jpg the copyright seems complicated. The original photograph was taken some time in the 19th or early 20th century by an unknown photographer. I could swap that out for a photo where the copyright status is more clear-cut; what do you advise? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The answer to your first question is yes. On the second, what is the first publication of this image that can be identified? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Object tags now also added to File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_Mecca_panorama.jpg, File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_mss_0097_fol_9b-10a.jpg, and File:Khalili_Collection_Hajj_and_Arts_of_Pilgrimage_Mss_1025_fol_15a_CROP.jpg. The archival photograph I've swapped out of the article and will look at deleting since the copyright status is uncertain. The replacement image I've chosen is File:Khalili Collection Hajj and Arts of Pilgrimage txt 0241 full.jpg. Let me know if there's anything further I need to do. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, how is this one now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review – pass
I'll take a look over this one shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This review will deal specifically with the following Featured article criteria:

I will not necessarily read any of the article beyond quotes spotchecks.
 * 1c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate.
 * 1f. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
 * 2c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.

I'll start off by checking the formatting. Now for some spotchecks. These will check for both 1f concerns and for verifiability under 1c.
 * Firstly, a summary query; why are Berns and Porter listed in the Sources section, while another source used multiple times; Morris Hargreaves McIntyre is not?
 * No good reason, so that citation is now moved to Sources and sfn templates are used inline
 * Another summary point; some news sources and websites use the title of the work, such as "The Independent", "Kashmir Observer" etc. However, others use the website address, such as "gulfnews.com", "www.princeofwales.gov.uk". Please be consistent. (I favour the title myself.)
 * Now standardised on titles, but see below about the issue with nassedkhalili.com
 * Consider adding College Art Association as the publisher for ref #1, but no big deal.
 * done
 * I'm getting a "Page not found" error for ref #2 "The Laws of Islam". Also, if you manage to stick with this reference, add the state for the location, to be consistent with the majority of your other US based source locations. As it is a book with an ISBN, technically no link nor access date is required.
 * I've removed the entire ref since another existing source states the same fact
 * Another error for reference #4, updated link seems to be.
 * done
 * Ref #5, source lists the date as 29 January, whereas the reference lists 28 January.
 * done
 * Ref #6 doesn't need an access date.
 * done
 * Ref #7, it would be useful to list the location as "Ibadan, Nigeria" for clarity.
 * done
 * Ref #8, the source lists Wensinck, A.J. and Jomier, J. as authors, whereas the reference only lists Wensinck, Arent Jan.
 * done
 * Ref #10, per the MOS, change the hyphen in the title to an WP:ENDASH.
 * done
 * Ref #13 should be "The Guardian", not "the Guardian". Also ref #32, #39, #40, #41, #42.
 * done
 * Ref #19 should note that it is subscription only:
 * done
 * Ref #25, remove the "| reviews, news & interviews" bit from the end of the title.
 * done
 * Ref #27 should be "pp. 272–275." per the MOS.
 * done
 * Ref #30 should note that it is subscription only:
 * done; I've also done this for Times Higher Education which was ref 12.
 * For ref #48, I would list Nasser David Khalili as the publisher, not the website.
 * done, but I ask what you want me to call this website, since we're using titles, not domain names.
 * Ref #49, per his University page, his name should be listed as "Tamimi Arab, P." or "Tamimi Arab, Pooyan" rather than "Arab, Pooyan Tamimi".
 * done
 * For "Berns, Steph (2015)" if you are specifically citing the "Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam" chapter then you need the page range listed.
 * done
 * Thanks for delving so deeply in this aspect of the review! MartinPoulter (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "At the time of the exhibition, the journey was being made by three million pilgrims each year." – Sourced to ref #5, Gilbert, Jenny (28 January 2012). Checks out fine for both 1f and 1c.
 * "The displays were arranged to draw visitors around the circular space, mimicking the tawaf: the anticlockwise walk around the Kaaba that is a core ritual of the hajj." – Sourced to ref #25, Guner, Fisun (21 February 2012). No 1f concerns. The source doesn't cover the tawaf being a "core ritual of the hajj", but a quick look around the internet makes it plain this is true, and I'm happy to accept it as a "sky is blue" statement that doesn't require sourcing.
 * "Some non-Muslim visitors reported that overhearing Muslim families' conversations, or striking up conversations with them, helped them appreciate the spiritual importance of the hajj." – Sourced to ref #26, Berns, Steph (2012). Checks out fine for both 1f and 1c.
 * "The journalist and broadcaster Sarfraz Manzoor took his 78-year-old mother to the exhibition since she had long wanted to perform the hajj but was too infirm to make the trip. He contrasted his mother's joyous reaction against his own mixed feelings on the subject matter as a British Muslim. "And yet", he wrote, "the exhibition does illuminate the magnetic appeal of the hajj – of knowing that hundreds of millions have visited the site and completed the same rituals."" – Sourced to ref #39, Manzoor, Sarfraz (9 March 2012). Checks out fine for both 1f and 1c.
 * "These included the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha and the Arab World Institute in Paris. The Doha exhibition was titled Hajj: The Journey Through Art and drew most of its content from Qatari art collections. Since France has many North African immigrants, the Paris exhibition focused on hajj routes from North Africa." – Sourced to ref #47, Mishkhas, Abeer (26 July 2013). Checks out fine for both 1f and 1c.


 * The article generally appears well-referenced, with inline citations appearing frequently throughout.
 * Searches in all the normal places don't reveal any obvious omissions.
 * My only concern regarding the quality of the sources is with Steph Berns' 2015 piece, which is her PhD thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP tells us to be wary of these. Are you able to establish Berns' credentials, or that of this thesis to demonstrate that it meets the 1c requirement of "high-quality reliable sources"?

And that's a wrap on the source review. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate the time and detail you've put into this review, . In response to the query about the doctoral thesis, maybe I'm not objective about the reliability of doctoral theses, having invested several years of my life in one, so I will set out the positive reasons for using the thesis and let the community decide whether this source counts as reliable.
 * University of Kent is a reputable research university and its acceptance of the thesis would involve review by a relevant researcher.
 * According to Google Scholar, the thesis is cited by 19 other academic publications.
 * Berns subsequently held academic posts at Lancaster University and at Rhur University Bochum (sadly the Wayback Machine doesn't seem to have prior versions of that profile). At Lancaster, she published this peer-reviewed paper which also dealt with public responses to events put on by cultural heritage institutions.
 * The chapter of the thesis used in this article was briefly summarised in the peer-reviewed journal Material Religion and then adapted into a chapter in the 2016 book Materiality and the Study of Religion. Google Scholar finds seven citations for the book chapter. I haven't got hold of this book (neither my university nor other nearby university libraries have it) but if the thesis is decided to be an inadequate source I could make more efforts to access it.
 * Where I introduce Berns' research in this article, I give context by describing Berns as a doctoral researcher.
 * The thesis provides more detail about the public response to the exhibition than is given in the Material Religion summary and which I personally think is very interesting.
 * MartinPoulter (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt and detailed responses. Regarding ref #48, Nasser David Khalili's website, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to just list him as the publisher, and not include a website field at all. Regarding Steph Berns' thesis, I am more than content with it as a source after your response. In most cases, when I question whether a source meets our requirements, I am not necessarily saying that I don't believe it does, simply that I am after more information. What you have provided is more than sufficient for me to be happy with its inclusion. I have used PhD theses in articles of my own, but it is simply an area where we have to be slightly more careful. Overall, as the only outstanding "issue" is the minor one on ref #48, I am happy to mark this source review as a pass. Based on the sourcing, and the small parts of the article I read, let me congratulate you on a nice piece of work. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 14:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the website field as requested, resolving that final issue. Thanks again! MartinPoulter (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)