I hope to bring it to GA status eventually. Evaluate it for the usual (sources, NPOV, grammar etc). Constructive criticism is welcomed. In particular, I would like to know the following:
Unfortunately, I've tried looking for images, but couldn't find any relevant ones. Thanks in advance. Bless sins 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The first issue is NPOV. All opinions need to be attributed to the scholars, rather than stated as this is the correct opinion. In addition, the article is one sided; where it makes Islam look good, there is elaboration, where it makes islam look bad, the issues are barely touched, as if to deminish attention to that section. As this topic is closely related to Islamic terrorism, there probably is more said on this which isn't covered in this article. I have also noticed some views have been censored out since 2 months ago.
Second issue: As the qur'an isn't being used as a primary source, quran quotes should not be in the <ref></ref> format.
As for FA status, maybe in the future, but the article isn't ready yet.-- Sefringle Talk 03:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
In response to your specific questions:
Other reactions?
-- ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
First and foremost, Wikipedia articles must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. This is where this article fails spectacularly. For the most part, it's sourced to primary sources, like the Qur'an, the hadith, and some Islamic scholars; academic sources are few and far between. This approach is not acceptable because drawing conclusions from the Qur'an and the hadith is original research and when one cites an Islamic scholar directly, one may give undue weight to a minority point of view. This is exactly what's happened in this article; the mosr frequently cited scholars are Ghamidi and Maududi: both are modern scholars with rather idiosyncretic views, especially Ghamidi, neither counts as a classical authority for any school of Islamic jurisprudence. At this point in the development of the article, it makes no sense to delve into further details; above all, the issue of sourcing must be fixed. Beit Or 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope to bring it to GA status eventually. Evaluate it for the usual (sources, NPOV, grammar etc). Constructive criticism is welcomed. In particular, I would like to know the following:
Unfortunately, I've tried looking for images, but couldn't find any relevant ones. Thanks in advance. Bless sins 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The first issue is NPOV. All opinions need to be attributed to the scholars, rather than stated as this is the correct opinion. In addition, the article is one sided; where it makes Islam look good, there is elaboration, where it makes islam look bad, the issues are barely touched, as if to deminish attention to that section. As this topic is closely related to Islamic terrorism, there probably is more said on this which isn't covered in this article. I have also noticed some views have been censored out since 2 months ago.
Second issue: As the qur'an isn't being used as a primary source, quran quotes should not be in the <ref></ref> format.
As for FA status, maybe in the future, but the article isn't ready yet.-- Sefringle Talk 03:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
In response to your specific questions:
Other reactions?
-- ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
First and foremost, Wikipedia articles must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. This is where this article fails spectacularly. For the most part, it's sourced to primary sources, like the Qur'an, the hadith, and some Islamic scholars; academic sources are few and far between. This approach is not acceptable because drawing conclusions from the Qur'an and the hadith is original research and when one cites an Islamic scholar directly, one may give undue weight to a minority point of view. This is exactly what's happened in this article; the mosr frequently cited scholars are Ghamidi and Maududi: both are modern scholars with rather idiosyncretic views, especially Ghamidi, neither counts as a classical authority for any school of Islamic jurisprudence. At this point in the development of the article, it makes no sense to delve into further details; above all, the issue of sourcing must be fixed. Beit Or 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)