Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Allah/1

Allah

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Procedural close. GAR is not proving to be helpful right now. Although the article was stable at the time of review, this is not so clear at present. Once the current intensive editing settles down the article can be renominated. If further problems arise, a new GAR discussion can be opened. Geometry guy 17:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was quick-failed by User:Jackturner3 on the following grounds:


 * 1) There are a lot of problems with the prose in this article...
 * 2) It is not focused and nor does it cover major aspects since "I’m sure there is a lot more that could be said about Allah in Islam in this article since Allah commonly connotated with Islam. If more could be added regarding the use of Allah as a name for God among Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, that would be beneficial as well."
 * 3) It is not stable.

I replied to User:Jackturner3 on the talk page of Allah and left a note on his talk page but it seems that he is too busy with other articles so I am bringing the case here.

The reason number 3 is incorrect. There has been no editwar at least since a couple of month ago. The reason number 2 is incorrect since: As mentioned at the top of the article, "This article is about the Arabic word "Allah". See God in Islam for the Islamic conception of God." We discuss the history of the term and its usage in English etc here. There is indeed a subsection associated to the concept of Allah in various religions. There, I have given some more space to Islam but I don't think there is anything Islamic in the term Allah. It was used before Islam and is the only word for God that Arab Christians use. The association of the term with Islam is due to those who were engaged in Comparative religous studies which is at the bottom of it "artificial". So, I think pointing out to the main article and providing a summary here is sufficient.

I have also tried to address reason number but I don't think the article deserves quick failing.

I would also appreciate any other feedback you might have that may help improving the article.

Regards,--Be happy!! (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Ahlan wa sahlan! I agree with Jack that the prose need sharpening. An example:
 * The concepts associated with the term Allah (as a deity) though differed from tradition to tradition.  The parenthetical statement is awkward, as is the use of the word though.
 * There are also MoS issues. Some of the paragraphs and sections are a trifle short. And footnotes referencing sura and ayah should mention the Qur'an as the source: for example, Qur'an, 6:100, rather than 6:100.
 * I agree with Aminz that the article is stable.
 * Some sections need to be broader in coverage. For instance, "In Christianity and Judaism" could be expanded to deal with the unique treatment of Allah among Arab Christians and Sephardic Jews. For example, the Trinitarian formula among Arab Christians is typically expressed as "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God". The "One God" phrase is unique to Christians living in Muslim-dominated lands, resulting from Christian Arab's need to "prove" their monotheism to their Muslim neighbors.
 * The article has come a long way, but still needs additional work before it's ready for GA listing. You may wish to have another editor or the League of Copyeditors help address prose and MoS issues. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Majoreditor for the feedback. I have made some changes accordingly.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note Nomination was not quick-failed, as is incorrectly asserted above; see this edit for the review. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 13:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the reasons above. But the article was not put on hold, that's why I said it was quick-failed (my usage seems incorrect per your comment though). --Be happy!! (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, see WP:QFC. Holds, by the way, are not required and are used at the discretion of the reviewer. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed, I didn't "quick fail" the article. I actually read the article and commented on it; had it been a "quick fail," I wouldn't have bothered to read the article in the first place.  Additinoally, more than 20 edits in a day is excessive and, to my mind, contributes to instability. -- jackturner3 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jack, thanks for reviewing the article. one reason that I requested for more feedbacks was that I felt you ignored me when I left a comment in response to your review, even after I requested for some clarification on your talk page. I still feel there is some misunderstanding between us. Can you please let me clarify the 20 edits per day?? There was only one edit on the day you failed the article(14th). There was many edits before the nomination of the article for GA (11th) in preparation for nomination. None of those edits were subject to edit war however.
 * Anyways, thanks again for reviewing the article. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is stable. It's not averaging 20 edits per day; even if it were, it's relatively free from edit wars and content disputes. Compared to Hillary Rodham Clinton (see above GAR discussion) it's quite stable. Majoreditor (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't claiming that there was an edit war going on, only that the nuber of edits a few days before the review made me stop and think a moment. But, I didn't fail the article for the edits, I failed it for the content reasons. -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Sadly, an edit war has erupted. It may take a few days to play out. In the meanwhile the article isn't stable enough for listing. I suggest we close this discussion as Endorse Fail and let matters settle down. The article can be eventually re-nominate once editors work through their issues. Meanwhile I'll try to help with the article and its talk page discussions. Majoreditor (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * List as GA; the article is reasonably well written and there is no need to fail it, let alone quick failing it!! &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (Operibus anteire) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)