Wikipedia:Peer review/Jihad/archive1

Jihad
This is a page which has had a substantial history on Wikipedia, and it is an article that I think can benefit greatly from input outside of the current circle of editors who have been working on it recently. I would like to extend an invitation to all Wikipedians to comment on the article itself, and provide constructive feedback on how to bring its content up to featured article standard. I am unfamiliar with the topic, and I am not sure where to begin.

There is undoubtedly a lot of work to be done, but considering that this article has been around since October 2001, it is high time that this article got some feedback. I am hoping that the article will benefit from multiple users reviewing the content - it is a topic that is difficult to write neutrally, and one that has historically caused a lot of contention. I believe one of the best ways to deal with situations like this is to generate more dialogue and new ideas - especially ones that may not have been covered on the talk page, and ones that might combine ideas which are already present. Please note that there is currently a dispute regarding a particular definition of jihad, and I am not sure how this should best be addressed. I am hoping that the peer review can provide answers listed below, although I would be very greatful if you could provide any feedback. I would be most interested in the following though:


 * 1) Does the article cover all the essential aspects of jihad?
 * 2) Are there substantial sources of information which are missing from the article?
 * 3) Does it cover jihad adequately from a social and political perspective?
 * 4) Are there minority perspectives which would enhance the article, but are currently missing?
 * 5) Is the topic introduced in a manner which is clear to those who are unfamiliar with the topic?
 * 6) Can the article be written in a more neutral manner?

If you choose to provide feedback, I would like to request that it be well reasoned and thought out. There are a number of stylistic issues which need to be resolved, but for the moment I hope we can confine the goal of this peer review to a number of achievable objectives. I must admit that I am a little on edge, as I do not want to see this peer review page potentially degenerate into one where the focus on article content is lost, so if you provide feedback, I sincerely hope it is written in a manner which is professional, respectful, and scholarly. I hope it can set an example of the high quality of feedback Wikipedia's peer review systems can give. Thanks in advance - your efforts and time are greatly appreciated! --HappyCamper 05:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is a peer review really appropriate while the page is protected? NatusRoma 02:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it might help with the article. Right now, there is not too much active discussion on the talk page related to the article. The moment the page is unprotected, the "revert war" starts again. It has been ongoing for about a month, and I was hoping that perhaps an introduction of new ideas might help with the article. --HappyCamper 02:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be interesting and instructive to compare the words "Jihad" and "Crusade". Obviously, in the past, the later has been used in a military sense, but it also has political and personal ramifications that are non-military in nature. So the two words have some similarities. Thanks. &mdash; RJH 19:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)