Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Islam/archive1

Islam
Great article, I learned a lot from it. There's certainly enough information, even if it's a topic some people won't like, not to mention a magnet for vandals. --Jibbajabba 22:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (withdrawing support vote - changed to no opinion) - featured articles desperately needs more non-western articles.Bwithh 23:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You gave that reason for something else, plus it's not really much of a reason in the first place... Can you please say something about the quality so it sounds credible? No offense. --Jibbajabba 23:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object:
 * The image Image:Masjidnabawi.jpg has no source or copyright information.
 * Image has been replaced with a Common Creative Licensed image.
 * What do the two different shades of green in Image:Islam by country.png mean?
 * Sunnite vs. Shiite distribution, have a look at the Image page dab (&#5839;)
 * Does it say that in the German description? The English description doesn't. --Carnildo 20:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a "citation needed" note in "Symbols of Islam". This needs to be taken care of.
 * --Carnildo 00:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. People in general could benefit from some NPOV information about Islam! --Striver 00:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The article lacks inline citations, and the introduction is unacceptable. &rarr;Raul654 01:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - Lead is far too short; several one-paragraph (and one sentence) subsections. As an aside, the FAC process should be, I think, totally agnostic toward such arguments as "we need more non-western FAs" and "people could benefit from some NPOV information about Islam". Those are great reasons to go work on an article and bring it up to FA quality but meaningless reasons to vote support for an article. That said, I don't think this article is all that far from the goal, and with supporters like those here, I look forward to seeing it as an FA soon. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 *  Those are great reasons to go work on an article and bring it up to FA quality but meaningless reasons to vote support for an article.  - AMEN, brother. &rarr;Raul654 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object Sadly, article is not stable. At least 18 vandalisms and one linkspam in the past 3 days.  I believe the lead should be 3 paragraphs, not one sentence.  Contents are too long and ungainly, it could use better referencing, and there's a number of red links. Proto t c 12:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Vandalism does not an unstable article make. &rarr;Raul654 17:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but incessant POV edit wars (q.v. this morning) do.Timothy Usher 20:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * comment, the introduction needs some work. I give it a at the very least, though. dab (&#5839;) 13:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * comment I feel as one of the regular editors on the article that it could use some more work, but it is definitely a good article at least. Maybe in a month it can be renominated for FAC. Also the article faces vandalism problems just like every other religion article, but that shouldn't affect it's FAC. Editors should list some of their concerns here, so that the article can be improved. I added the demographics picture description after Carnildo's concern and I also think that the introduction can be expanded. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * comment. i don't think the article is professional and encyclopedic enough yet. --Juan Muslim 02:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * object for purely selfish reasons. If we make it a featured article the already ridiculous levels of vandalism will increase, as will the partisan sniping, of which we already have quite enough. I think. Other people who work on the article regularly may feel differently, of course. Want to take this opportunity to point out that there is certainly much to be proud of in this article, and that credit for this is due in large measure to User:Zora. She's just done a superb job. BrandonYusufToropov 15:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That objection probably falls afoul of WP:FAC's "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." If it's any consolation, I don't think being featured usually has much effect on vandalism levels, except for the day it's on the front page. Its effect on partisan sniping is harder to guess at. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This objection is invalid. &rarr;Raul654 17:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I hear what you're saying, and I understand that this objection of mine is off base. BrandonYusufToropov 19:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)