Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mosque/archive1


 * 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 User:Dana boomer 09:04, 20 December 2013.

Review commentary

 * ''Notified: Tariqabjotu

I am nominating this featured article for review because... Loomspicker (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Comment - Loomspicker, please notify the interested projects (there are three listed on the article talk page). Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Many pictures used are of low quality
 * 2) The lead does not summarise the article, it jumps to the details straight away and is too short, does not have the prose of a FA quality article
 * 3) For such a key subject of Islam, this page is very short
 * 4) No diagram like we have on Kaaba
 * 5) Lacks many historical examples, for example Mosque only mentions examples of modern day conflicts
 * 6) Pictures plastered everywhere and some huge gallery for some reason.
 * Placed this review in Featured article review. GamerPro64  23:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know where in the project page to put this?--Loomspicker (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just leave a note on the each project's talk page. You can use the same template you did when you left a note on Tariqabjotu's talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I dont know that I agree with many of the reasons listed above (the article is near or beyond the recommended max page length and not too short for example) or very easy to fix (removal of images, particularly low quality and redundant), but it does appear that there has been a lot of unsourced content that has made its way into the article which could be very problematic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing, images and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment If people could be a bit more specific about issues that need to be addressed (certain sections or paragraphs), I'd be willing to tackle them. --  tariq abjotu  14:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) There still many images that don't contribute anything to the article, some are just pictures saying this is mosque x in country y, why is that specific mosque more relevant than the other million in the world? These would be better replaced by relevant images, such as Dome, Ablution facilities, Dress, lack a good quality image. Lower quality relevant ones are placed elsewhere in the article.
 * 2) "The Qua'ran is a special book know by Muslims." - vandalism?
 * 3) "In India, the first mosque has been claimed as Cheraman Juma Masjid in the early 7th century, but this claim is dubious" - claimed by who? (WP:CLAIM)
 * 4) There is no tables, graphs or maps showing the distribution, rise, concentrations of mosques, I'm sure there is data out there for this.
 * 5) Lacks mentions of certain data, for example Minarets section doesn't say how high they are. Prayer hall doesn't provide any examples of how many people can fit in them.
 * 6) Mosque, provides specific incidents, but would be better to summarise that the mosques become specific targets in response to the islamic terrorist attacks.
 * 7) Contemporary features section unsourced.
 * 8) "Under most interpretations of sharia, non-Muslims may be allowed into mosque" the source is from someone who lived 972 C.E, more modern sources would be good to confirm this is still true today.
 * 9) Quran quotes need additional sourcing, as you are interpreting the meaning of the passage yourself, making it original research.--Loomspicker (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel some of these are unnecessary changes (namely, the table and data you seem to want is unlikely to exist), but I'm going through the entire article to make the text sound better and improve source (issues that I feel are much more important than some of the things you mentioned here). --  tariq abjotu  15:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of a relocation now, so I've slowed down progress on restoring the article to featured level. I'll continue working on it in my spare time and, as you see, I've already made some headway (see the much improved History section). So a bit of patience with this would be greatly appreciated. --  tariq abjotu  17:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove. Insufficient density of citations - numerous unreferenced paragraph - quickfail criteria for a new nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove It's too bad because it's such an important article, but it is very far from featured status. I randomly chose a paragraph to read carefully, and found it to be very very poorly written. Consider the sentence: "However, nearly every mosque assigns a muezzin for each prayer to say the adhan as it is a recommended practice or sunnah of the Islamic prophet Muhammad." What? Consider this: "before the five required daily prayers, a muezzin calls the worshippers to prayer" and then followed by "the adhan is required before every prayer." which is just repeating the same thing twice in a row. By the way there are no citations for any of the examples I've given. I think it needs a very significant rewrite and I cannot see it salvaged in any short amount of time. Hope it gets improved, it's a vital wikipedia article. Mattximus (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Tariqabjotu, are you still interested in working on this article? I don't see any edits to it from you since mid-October. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose I'm still interested in working on the article, but, as others mentioned above, this article really does need significant work. Had I been more motivated, I could have probably done it within a month. But I wasn't, and it's been a couple months for this FAR already. So, I would not object to the article having its FA status revoked. --  tariq abjotu  14:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove Per above, citation and prose issues. It's a 2006 FA that hasn't kept up with stricter standards. It's still way better than most articles but not FA unfortunately. Acer (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.