Wikipedia:Peer review/Muhammad as a diplomat/archive1

Muhammad as a diplomat
very new article. i would like to increase its exposure by putting it up for peer review, so that i can get other editors' views, criticism and comments about whatever aspect. ideally i would like to nominate the article for WP:GA once general consensus is achieved. any constructive comments would be greatly appreciated. thank you!  ITAQALLAH  00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC) --Konstable 13:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have had a look through some of the article, some comments (quick disclaimer, I can only tell you the feeling that I get from this article, because my historical knowledge of Islam is very limited):
 * You mention "Watt" a couple of times without saying who he is, and there is no relavent Wikipedia article on him.
 * Watt is linked to his WP article the first time he is mentioned (under "journey to taif" section)  ITAQALLAH   17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also you may need to mention any opposing views and controversies that exist. It seems to me that apart from Watt, all you other major sources are Muslim scholars.  While I understand that most of the historical information would come from Islamic sources I would think there would be more "western" oppinions other than Watt.
 * the only muslim source that i have used to any significance is al-mubarakpuri - a number of other times muslim sources are used when i am providing a cite for historical documentation (such as citing the places where purported letters are documented) rather than historical analysis. the rest is largely from Watt, Martin Forward (whose credentials i note on the talk page as no WP article on him exists), the Encyclopaedia of Islam (where i primarily use Buhl's "Muhammad" article for the general events and then using more specific articles when more information is required) whom are all orientalists. that some of the articles of relevance such as aws/khazraj/hudaybiyya on EoI are written by Watt is something i can do very little about, as these are the only articles having the relevant and specific information related to the topic. the main opposing view related to the article is about the historicity of letters sent by Muhammad, where views are divergent. to my knowledge, the recollection of many other events in the article are not are source of divergence- for if they were, then EoI as a tertiary source would have mentioned where any scholarly divergence of opinions occured if any.  ITAQALLAH   17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Taif 1970 Saudi Arabia.jpg is an unsourced image.
 * okay, i will check that out  ITAQALLAH   17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And a great job in creating an article of this standard in such a short time!
 * thank you! and your comments on this topic are very much appreciated.  ITAQALLAH   17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)