Wikipedia:Featured article review/Islam/archive2


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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:46, 30 July 2010.

Review commentary

 * ''Notified: Listed Wikiprojects; top editors long inactive.
 * Please list the notifications with links to the talk pages. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Near the top of Featured articles/Cleanup listing. Seems to have problems with 1a, 1c, 1d.
 * Lots of [improper synthesis] tags in the first section.
 * [citation needed]s under the "Rise of the caliphate and civil war (632–750)" header.
 * "New dynasties and colonialism (1030–1918)" breaks down into proseline in the last three (very short) paragraphs.
 * Most of the "mosques" header is unsourced.
 * Sunni and Shi'a sections under "Denominations" end in one-sentence paragraphs.
 * What the heck is up with all the bullet lists in the references section? That's a hot mess and a half. I honestly have no clue who thought that was a good idea.
 * Several bare URLs in the references.
 * What makes this a RS? (ref #17 at time of review)

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments Certainly needs a brush-up. This article gets about 12,000 views per day, & ought to meet the highest standards. I am slightly alarmed by the editing stats; the most prolific editors have not edited the article in a long time, often years, and most editors with 2010 edit dates have just edited for a few days.
 * The first sentence is not a good start - too much crammed in & not really grammatical: "...and by the Prophet of Islam Muhammad's demonstrations and real-life examples..." needs rephasing. Done, ok.
 * Lots of tags - I don't know how valid these are. All seem gone, ok
 * In "articles of faith" "Also, there are other beliefs that differ between particular sects" seems a questionable link. - rewritten, ok
 * The law section is somewhat unclear as to when & how Islamic law has been applied. - seems unchanged. Still an issue.
 * In the history the period from roughly the 16th to early 20th century - the Early Modern period in Western terms - is very sketchily handled indeed. The overtaking of the Islamic world by the West is politely passed over. - Not much change, if any
 * The history section is not very well written, and the reader struggles to see the wood for the trees. - rather better now?
 * No mention of economic aspects of history at all - still true
 * The Maratha Empire was Hindu, not Sikh as stated. - corrected.
 * The 1st para of "Islamic revival and Islamist movements" is unreferenced. - still the case
 * The "Denominations" section has too many short sections and paragraphs. Either roll them up or, better, expand them. - Improved; more could perhaps be done.
 * No section on clergy, professional scholars and others with religiously-sanctioned positions. - short section added; could be longer.
 * No coverage of Islam and either the arts or sciences, either historically or today. No touching on the role of the Arabic language, or the resistance until extremely late towards printing here for example. - Still the case
 * No mention of slavery, either from the historical or religious aspects. - Still the case
 * The (unreferenced) picture caption "Islam prohibits women from showing their hair in public" would not be accepted by very many Muslims. - changed; ok
 * Coverage of a number of areas seems generally rather brief. - Not too much change here
 * Some of the references seem questionable - there are too many old & general encyclopedias for one thing. Are they all actually used? The References contain a total of 8 works by Bernard Lewis, but I can't see that any of them are actually cited! Uncited works should be used, moved to Further reading, or dropped. - Still the case, though I can only see 7 Lewises now!
 * The prose throughout is at best serviceable, and sometimes clunky and unclear. - has improved. UPDATES Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, TPH, did you consider raising the issue of a revert to the version that last passed FAR before bringing this article to FAR? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The last FAR Featured article review/Islam/archive1 btw was a pointy & abortive attempt to win an edit war. There was effectively no review of the article as it then was. Maybe one should look at the article that passed FAC in 2007? Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Or something; the article was once in good shape, and I doubt that Islam has changed all that much in the interim :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That revision still has the yucky bullet-listed sources, which IMO should be demolished and rebuilt in a more accessible, less MOS-shredding format. Also, that revision still has many of the problems pointed out by Johnbod. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want i could contribute to some changes. Leave me a specific note on my talk page if im needed.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are prose, sourcing, comprehensiveness  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll '')  01:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold since the above user wishes to fix the problems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He hasn't edited the article yet, & no "specific note" has been left. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i will try to address some of the problems in the Islam article right now. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Sunni and Shi'a sections under "Denominations" end in one-sentence paragraphs." I dont see any problems with them. Can you be more specific?Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC) "What makes this a RS? (ref #17 at time of review)" adherents is a reliable source in my opinionIwanttoeditthissh (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC) "the Early Modern period in Western terms" - i think you should make this edit yourself Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC) "The 1st para of "Islamic revival and Islamist movements" is unreferenced."should i delete it? I cant find any sources Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No mention of economic aspects of history at all - actually, jizyah is mentioned under tax (unsigned - was that you Iwanttoeditthissh?)
 * Iwanttoeditthissh continues to deal with points, but a little edit war has broken out of the numbers/%s of Sunni & Shia. I don't have time to look at this now, but there must be firm sources for figures somewhere, maybe in one of the other articles on the topic. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A notice was left on my talk page: "But so far we only have sources on statistics for Shia and Sunni, not other sects such as Ibadi, Sufi or Ahmadiyya (which has led to edit warring)." I'm clearly in over my head here since I made the mistake of nominating an article on a very in depth subject I know nothing about, so I'll bow out now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I would like an oppurtunity to hopefully deal with some of the issues raised in this review, having participated in bringing this article up to FA status a few years ago. I think perhaps over time additions or changes have probably been made, some of which fall below the high standards the article should meet. But I will look through the comments made and try to make changes accordingly.  ITAQALLAH   23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Itaqallah, it's great to see an experienced editor starting to work on the comments from the FAR - hopefully this article's FA status can be saved, as it is a major topic here on WP. Please just drop a note here when you feel you have addressed the concerns above, and please feel free to ping the editors who have commented in both the FAR and FARC sections to revisit their comments once they have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: How is work going on this? If the main editors feel that the above comments have been addressed, please feel free to ping the editors who have commented and ask them for any further issues they may have with the article. I still see improperly formatted references, dead links, and an extensive see also section (truely comprehensive FAs have few or no see alsos, as any links that are connected enough to be put into a see also section should be integrated into the article's body). If this is to be kept at FARC, it should also have an image review, but before I start pinging these reviewers, I would like to know if there are editors still interested in working on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist per criterion three:
 * File:Divisions of Islam.png - Source should be provided for underlying information.
 * File:Madhhab Map2.png - Needs source for the "blank-map" from which it was derived.
 * File:World Muslim Population Pew Forum.png - Needs source for the "blank-map" from which it was derived.
 * File:Hattin.jpg - Needs a summary per WP:IUP. When was this painted?  By whom?  Is this actually the battle of Hattin (i.e. resolve the disputed tag)?
 * Best just removed; whatever it was intended to represent, Hattin was famously fought in the middle of nowhere, with (crucially) no water around - this battle is sited across a stream outside a city or castle. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Dcp7323-Edirne-Eski Camii Allah-ds.svg - Mere text is not eligible for copyright protection. Re-license accordingly.
 * File:Allah-eser-green.png - A derivative of this, which does not have a source. If indeed PD, removing background and coloring green is probably not sufficient originality to generate a new copyright (i.e. should not be using GFDL/CC license).  Эlcobbola  talk 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments. My feeling is that this should be kept, but I've mostly looked at the prose. A few fixes are needed.
 * 1) "Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive (see Islam (term))." Putting grammar at the head of this article will turn off a lot of readers. Can it be just "is related to", with the refs?
 * 2) "revealed at many times and places before,"—remove the last word?
 * 3) "The majority of Muslims belong to one of two denominations, the Sunni and the Shi'a."—This could be anything down to 51%. Is that the meaning? (I'd have thought a much higher proportion ... "most", or "almost all", or "the overwhelming majority")
 * 4) "are found in" twice within 10 seconds.
 * 5) "Islam" x 2. "religion" x 2.

That's the lead. Then ...
 * 1) "others ... other" (who's watching out for close repetitions?)
 * 2) MoS on ellipsis-point spacing—always to the left. But why not just "God, the One and Only etc without the points? Much neater. There are other ellipsis dots that need a space, too.
 * 3) Shouldn't "p." and the page number that follows it be spaced apart?
 * 4) "People", then "humans". No big deal, but a little odd.
 * 5) "(literally:"—You could remove the colon.
 * 6) The Five Pillars list: they all start with nominal groups—fine—but why not remove "which is".
 * 7) Is alcohol a food?
 * 8) Image of the muslim male with supposedly "trimmed" beard (looks pretty big to me). Is this of photographic merit? Does it elucidate the text? Does it portray mulsims as being of a certain racial/physical type? It's a pity it also shifts the focus onto males, feeding an unfortunate perception of the religion. The image lower down of the woman could also be seen as pandering to the "beautiful young woman" stereotype, and is unnecessary to explain the concept in the caption.
 * 9) Panoramic image of the mosque: it is TINY. Can it be "center" in the syntax and much much bigger, like about 400px?
 * 10) Year range in title: en dash, please.
 * 11) Ref tag 80, 82: formatting needs to be fixed.
 * 12) Invasions: see MoS about lower case in titles.
 * 13) "century to"—remove first word.
 * 14) Muslim percentage map: I nurse this idea that low-bandwidth users shouldn't have to click on images to get what they're about. Can you add to the caption something like "(black = 90–100%; lightest blue = 0–1%)". Just the outer two would give some idea. Same issue for denominations map.
 * 15) Faisal mosque: TINY. Is there something we should be noticing about the architecture? The caption needs to point us to it. Or give us a pic of one of the magically beautiful traditional mosques. BTW, the top image is great, but can't it be bigger? Can you shift that rather low-value box about Arabic text down away from the high-impact top, so the pic can be highlighted?
 * 16) No section on the relationship between Islam and art?

Please consider working up a WP:Featured topic on Islam. Tony  (talk)  13:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist Nearly three months and there are still plenty of issues not yet addressed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.