Talk:Muhammad/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] GA Review

[edit] GA nom

I think the work done on the article in recent months (barring the endless disputes about images etc.) has been generally good, and, reading through the article - everything seems roughly in the right place content wise. There might be slight issues with presentation or one or two areas where it's not comprehensive but I think these are more FA-related criteria. The content is generally thorough, citations are employed well, there is no original research so far as I can tell (I've only read through the bio section thoroughly though), there aren't any major omissions or neutrality issues I can see, and, well, stability-wise... this is probably as stable as we're going to get it. I do think the article needs improving in areas (I'd like to see the Western/European views section incorporate better structure given the presentation of the topic in the Muhammad article in EoI), but I do think it's near-GA standard if not already there. ITAQALLAH 23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Aisha's age has yet again been suppressed (why, if it's okay?) and the images showing Muhammad's face have been relegated to the bottom of the article. TharkunColl (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. It's a big can worms, I'm not willing to open. Besides, being an atheist, my opinon on any religion article, isn't much help. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, as was repeated ad nauseum, there's nothing remotely significant about Aisha's, Umm Kulthum's, Khadija's, Sawda's etc. age at marriage. You personally find it significant for motives you have already divulged. The current status of the images in the article appear to reflect a general consensus, not that I agree with it. ITAQALLAH 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Aisha's age is sigificant, unlike the others, precisely because she was a child. TharkunColl (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Significant to you, yes. Encyclopaedically or historically significant, not really. We already discussed these points to a significant extent, the end result being that you didn't provide any academic references demontrating or explaining that Aisha's age was uniquely significant, and, more preciesly, one of the most important things about her that it required mention in the sentence allocated to her. The discussion is there in the archives for you to review, and no consensus for inclusion materialised from it. ITAQALLAH 00:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's completely irrelevant in such a short section where the names of each wife isn't even mentioned. gren グレン 06:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

In light of discussion above I recommend reaching the compromise to ensure that article can be called stable. There is no evidence of an edit war, however the above discussion contributes to article's stability issue. Article needs to include reasonable spectrum of views in the lead section, particularly of the critics, however because this is article of the religious leader, it should not overemphasize it and can mention alternative POVs in passing.Wikidās-ॐ10:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikidas. The main significant critical views about Muhammad are covered in the European and Western views section. The section above is about whether Aisha's age needs to be noted (not whether criticism should be inserted) - and the contention is that it doesn't because there's nothing uniquely significant about it. If there is, and if this is one of the most important things about Aisha's life that it must be mentioned in the sentence allocated to her, then its significance needs to be backed up by academic sources. None of the academic sources (i.e. Encyclopedia of Islam) actually give substantial coverage about this aspect, because historically it wasn't an issue - hence to discuss it in the sentence allocated to her in this section would be undue weight. The contention has always been that this particular issue about Aisha is simply not significant enough that it outweighs the other things she is significant for (i.e. being one of the greatest female Islamic scholars, her participation in the Battle of the Camel, the incident of Ifk, etc.). We've had a few discussions on this, with the general opinion being that it's not particularly necessary. I don't mind covering the issue in a footnote in the interests of compromise, but I don't believe it's anymore significant than that - especially when the article already notes in that passage that Aisha was young. ITAQALLAH 14:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I will appreciate that when the issue is resolved (ie critical views reflected in the lead) and article is stable (ie the age issue is resolved one way or the other) we can conclude. I hope that about a week should be sufficient for this be addressed. Wikidās-ॐ 14:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little lost... the above discussion isn't about critical views in the lead... or is that one area you are recommending be worked on?
Regarding the lead... I don't think it would be fair to include critical views without coverage of traditional views, positive views, pre-modern and post-modern views, and so on. I don't quite know if it does need coverage in the lead, which is already quite large. What do you suggest? ITAQALLAH 14:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Itaqallah, I had a look at your suggestion diff and I think that the lead is acceptable in this form with small additions and removals, with a particular mention of sensitivities. I suggest arranging a compromise on the disagreement above to make sure article is stable.Wikidās-ॐ 17:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 1, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass, with minor comments
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Needs some more work
5. Article stability? Fail
6. Images?: Pass

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.Wikidās-ॐ 10:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)