Talk:Islam/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Titodutta (talk · contribs) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review starts

Let's begin the process

I am starting review. Please feel free to join! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary comment

I have read the article before starting review. The article looks very impressive and well written, but, still long way to go before making any conclusion!

After first look

First things to look for

Basic problems	Comment
The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability	N No problem!
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}	N No!
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars	N No!
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.	N No problem

First look assessment: Y Ok! There is not any "basic problem" in the article, and we can start the review in detail now. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead References

There are few WP:DEADREF in the article, see here, please correct these dead references. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you like it now? Sodicadl (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

Section Revelations

The Qur'an was reportedly written down by Muhammad's companions (sahabah) while he was alive - Please clarify this sentence. Who reported this? Where (I mean in which book etc.)? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

Existing templates

Section Government

There is one citation needed template in this section after this sentence In practice, Islamic rulers frequently bypassed the Sharia courts with a parallel system of so-called "Grievance courts" over which they had sole control., add the citation! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviewers suggestions.

Reviewer's edits

Edit summary	See the edit	Comment
Added CE after years 610 and 632	See the edit here	Add your comment here (if any)!

Template

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	A major issue (Islamic terrorism) has been completely omitted. This was present in the version of the article that brought it featured article status.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

This review appears to have missed the fact that the article has the follwing unaddressed cleanup tags which need sorting if it is to become GA class: [Wikipedia articles needing clarification (November 2010), Articles with dead external links (April 2012), Articles with unsourced statements (November 2010), Vague or ambiguous geographic scope (January 2012)] as some of them date from November 2010, clearly the article should be quickfailed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The review was not finished (actually just started). A large portion was changed after starting the review.. need to (wait for to) (talk to) the reviewer/editors. Can not see anyone right now! Will try to contact after waiting 1-2 days!--Tito Dutta ^Message

I have sent a message to nominator’s talk page and invited him to join the review here! --Tito Dutta ^Message 13:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting editors once again to participate in the review process! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting editors once again to participate in the review process! please join the review discussion! --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No significant work has been done since the nomination. I think it is a waste of time and effort. Not GA material, as the important criteria of broad coverage has not been met.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone going to join us here? --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevar. Peter Deer (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we don't have the quentity of reviewers for a slew to spend on this. For further improvement, best bet would be going to peer review. In the meantime this fails GA status due to the concerns mentioned above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it has been quite a while (>2 months) and no significant improvements. I would request the principal reviewer to close this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, atleast I cleared the dead links. So Tito don't give up yet! Sodicadl (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The review has been closed already. But, I'll be happy to restart (need to check GA rules first) it if you can give us time here in the review discussion! --Tito Dutta ✉ 10:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic terrorism

I'm new at the review process, so forgive me if I stumble a little, but I've been editing this article for a while. You say that the featured article version contained reference to Islamic Terrorism. Would you be so kind as to link that version? It might even be so simple as re-including it. Peter Deer (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping the editor who has raised the point Islamic terrorism! Or. I'll try to do! --Tito Dutta ^Message 23:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was the version that became a featured article 5 years ago. That version was smaller in size and detail. Even then, it had mentioned the issue of terrorism, though very little. Please see that the subsection 'Modern times" had barely 6 lines, and a part of one sentence mentioned terrorism; also in "Jihad" sebsection under "Duties and practices" discussed terrorism.

The present version does not mention terrorism at all, which is definitely a major aspect of the modern times in the history of Islam. It is the main reason of Islamophobia in many Western countries. It deserves significant mention.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we ought to determine is what has been added to the article since then that should remain, and what was removed from the article that should not have been. Make the adjustment and we have a good article on our hands. Peter Deer (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the difference!--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]