Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Islamic astronomy

Islamic astronomy


This is a very comprehensive, accurate, and extremely well sourced (at approximately 180 paragraphs, 132 distinct citations (some are used more than once), and a comprehensive list of other references). I failed its GA because of a few significant problems, but all of those have been personally resolved. Nousernamesleft talk and matrix? 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn. Nousernamesleft talk and matrix? 00:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Lots of short sections that should be merged, and the lead should be longer. Also how can an article that was failed at WP:GAN 2 days ago, and has had no significant changes since then, be expected to pass here?--Peter Andersen (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reasons that it was failed for were sourcing for the lead paragraph and coverage of a few certain topics in the middle, and have been fixed. I've fixed some of the problems you've brought up (expanded lead, merged short paragraphs). I am, however, withdrawing (see below) Nousernamesleft talk and matrix? 00:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid this is nowhere near FA. I haven't read it all, but to list a few reasons: the lead us unclear; the first statement in the body reeks of POV "Pre-Islamic Arabs had no scientific astronomy"; there are at least 4 of the online links coming up as 404; Statements like "...verses in the Qur'an (610-632) which some modern writers have interpreted as foreshadowing the expansion of the universe and possibly even the Big Bang theory" leave me asking - who are the 'some' and what is the significance?. I could go on, but I strongly suggest withdrawing this - and either taking it to peer review and/or seeking help from the relevant wikiprojects.--Docg 21:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take that advice. Nousernamesleft talk and matrix? 00:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm dubious that this article would even pass a half decent GA review, far too many problems with. It needs a lot of work on the prose, and there are numerous MOS breaches, not least in the layout of the many quotations. The article doesn't even tell me what makes for a brand called Islamic astonomy. What's Islamic about it, apart from the fact that it was carried out in Arabic countries? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: the title. I think it's called that (and I have no idea what it is called in journals) because it happened among Arabs, Persians, people of the Caucuses, etc. during the "Golden Age of Islam".  The term definitely has been used in books and academic journals since I remember searching this before... but I don't really know if it is the most used term.  "Middle Eastern astronomy" I have never heard but also suggests that it would take place to the modern day.  I think the attachment of "Islamic Astronomy" to the "Golden Age" gives it both a regional and time constraint. gren グレン 21:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead says: "It closely parallels the genesis of other Islamic sciences in its assimilation of foreign material and the amalgamation of the disparate elements of that material to create a science that was essentially Islamic". That suggests a lot more than just regular astronomy carried at a particular place and time. What is an Islamic science in this context? But the name of this article is the least of my concerns anyway. Unattributed statements like this - "It was believed there was no innovation of major significance during this period, but this view has been questioned by historians of astronomy in recent times" are much more worrying. It was believed by who? Who are these historians who question this view? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons above... some of your words are using ‛ to represent ayn while others just use '. I recommend you standardize this so that all characters are using directional markers which clearly distinguishes between the characters.  I tend to use ʿ and ʾ. gren グレン 21:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)