Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque/GA1

GA Review

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. I hope you can improve it quickly. This is how the article, as of September 22, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria.:

1. Well written?:

2. Factually accurate?:

Lead:Islamic tradition holds that Muhammad led prayers at this site before ascending to heaven. If ascending to heaven means Miraj which took place before Hijra, it doesn't relate to changing Qibla. It's written in Tafsir al-Mizan that There are numerous traditions of similar meaning narrated by the Sunni and Shi `ah narrators, which are recorded in the books of traditions. The reports differ about the time when the qiblah was changed. Most of them say that it happened in the month of Rajab in the second year of hijrah - the seventeenth month after the emigration; and this timing looks more correct. You can find more information here.

I tried clarifying this in the First qibla section. If it is not completely right, could you clarify it please. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to solve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages:This is not appropriate title to describe Muslim history. I suggest removing the tile and merging the section or substitute it with later constructions.

Done. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in coverage?:

History: The historical narration has cut since 1345. What happened between then and twentieth century.

After 1345, the Ottomans took power. They made a number of changes to the Temple Mount and the Old City, but as for the mosque itself, all they did was add some stained glass windows (under Suleiman the Magnificent) and work on a minaret. This is mentioned in the Minarets section. I know it doesn't seem likely that the Ottomans who controlled Palestine for centuries wouldn't do much to the holy mosque, but that's what happened. I looked and I looked (online websites, google books) but I found nothing. I could mention that the Ottomans did not make any major renovations in the History section if necessary though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should clarify this issue in the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I clarified in the Later constructions section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies: There are controversies over the ownership, Al-Aqsa Intifada, archaeological excavates, etc. which can be gathered in a new section. You can use Temple Mount and Third Temple's information which relates to this article.

Ownership is covered in the "Administration" subsection, the Intifada has its own subsection and the excavations have as well. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political significance doesn't sound good. What's your idea about Current situation?--Seyyed(t-c) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm more in favor of restoring the original structure. Would that be alright? --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Safarnama:Nasir Khusraw has described the mosque in 483AH. It's original but reliable and useful source. I don't know whether it's translated to English or not.[1][2] I suggest to use his quotation which is not against WP:OR.

I'm not sure what I should do with this. The links don't lead to his work, but footnotes. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find English translation of that book, you can add his quotation in this form.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I chose a piece of his description and added it, feel free to remove or substitute it with another piece.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farthest mosque:Please clarify originally intended interpretation. Does it mean al-Tafsir bi al-Ra'y? I think the first paragraph of Farthest mosque needs more clarification. In addition, It should be refered to some Muslim Tafsirs which explain the first verses of Sura Al-Isra. In addition, most part of the second paragraph from After he finished his prayers up to end is looked irrelevant. You can substitute it with one or two sentence. In brief, I think the first paragraph should be expanded, clarified and verified and the second one should be summarized.

I summed up the second passage. I am not sure what they are referring to. Most of that section was already there before I edited the article. Do you have any source that I could use to clear the first passage up?

This section has a lot of problem. Can you rewrite it?--Seyyed(t-c) 02:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Custodianship or Ownership:As you can find here, one of the main issues in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is the ownership of the Temple Mount, especially Al-Aqsa mosque. I think it is deserved to make a sub-section for it.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's enough info for a new subsection, but surely it could be added to the Administration section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral point of view?:

Third holiest site:Please clarify that this is Sunni viewpoint. Shia believe it's one of the holiest site, but not the third one.

Done.

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass--Seyyed(t-c) 07:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the problems (the qibla part might need further clarification by you or someone else). I'm a little confused, does the article pass the Well written, NPOV, and Stablilty criteria? Thanks for reviewing the article by the way. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked all of the aspects and whole of the article yet. Also I asked a native speaker to check lingual aspects.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native English speaker and checked the article for wording and grammar. In the Farthest mosque section, there are a couple of external links that need to be made into citations. There is a "citation needed" tag, but perhaps those external links take care of that. It is a very interesting article. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have just finished addressing the issues you brought up aka Factual accuracy, Broadness (including the Farthest mosque subsection which was rewritten, referenced and merged), NPOV, Article stability, Images and I assume it passes the Well written criterion since it was copyeditted by Matisse. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've solved all of the problem except what has been tagged by clarify and citation needed in Islam sub-section.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a ref for the definition of masjid, hid the hadith Jerusalem claim until ref is found and as for the "original interpretation" issue... I just don't know what to do here. I didn't add that bit and the books are not online, so either we hide this too temporarily until a ref is found or we dig for it. Do you think it would be in Tafsir al-Mizan? I'm not too educated with the hadiths. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence has been derived from western book and I'm not certain about the meaning of the intended interpretation. I think we can hide it and later ask some knowledgeable Muslim wikipedians who are more familiar with English translation of Islamic terms. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - change the sentence "Many Western historians, such as Heribert Busse and Neal Robinson, believe this is the intended interpretation.[53][54][clarify]" to this: Western historians Heribert Busse and Neal Robinson believe this is the intended interpretation.[53][54]

Reason: Per MoS, the use of vague words like "many" is discouraged because "many" is not specific and can be interpreted various ways by the reader. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am unclear about the sentence "This was because the significance of that particular spot on the Temple Mount was overtaken in Islamic jurisprudence after the change of the qibla to Mecca." What does "overtaken in Islamic jurisprudence" mean? Overtaken in the sense of surpassed or supplanted, or lost ground to? The dictionary says "overtaken" means 1) a: to catch up with b: to catch up with and pass by 2): to come upon suddenly. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used superseded. This might be the wrong word. Maybe you could find the right word. In other words the al-Aqsa was replaced by the Ka'aba in superiority after the change of the qibla to the Ka'aba. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded is good. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]