Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've had a quick read of the article, and in general it appears to be at or about GA-standard. However, I may make certain comments about "completeness" (see later). I'm now going to work my way through the article, but I'm leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point I will only be commenting on "problems" (minor or otherwise), but I will provide an overall comment at the end of the review.

Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) - The final part of this paragraph needs clarifying, if possible: i.e. "For centuries, al-Masjid al-Aqsa referred not only to the mosque, but to the entire sacred sanctuary. This changed during the period of Ottoman rule (c. early 16th-century to 1918) when the sanctuary complex came to be known as al-Haram ash-Sharif, and the mosque founded by Umar came to be known as al-Jami' al-Aqsa or al-Aqsa Mosque." It appears that the change ocurred sometime between the early 16th-century and 1918 - that's four centuries.[reply]

It doesn't give me the exact date but says "Al-Aqsa was the standard designation for the whole sanctuary until the Ottoman period." I clarified as much as I could. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History -
- Pre-construction -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) - Possibly a minor point, but "Residing on an artificial platform, the mosque is supported by arches constructed by Herod's engineers ...." could be read as saying that the mosque is supported by arches constructed by Herod's engineers (it certainly contains many arches), but I assume it is the artificial platform that is supported by arches constructed by Herod's engineers?[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) - The final paragraph states "Analysis of the wooden beams and panels removed from the building during renovations ....". I assume that "the building" means the Al-Aqsa Mosque and not the ruined "Church of Our Lady."? Changing "building" to mosque (or Mosque) would make that point clear (Note: the citation names the Al-Aqsa Mosque, so in that respect it is clear).[reply]

Clarified both points. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture -

... stopping for now. To be continued. .... Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) - I don't beleive that Citation 32 (this one [1]) is a WP:Reliable Source, it appears to be WP:SPAM.[reply]
Citation 36 appears to be broken web link.
Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC) - Citations 40 and 41 are newspaper article with named authors: but the authors are not named in the citations, neither is the access date given - I suggest that the two citations are properly formated (if necessary using the {{cite news}} template).[reply]
Citation 16 (International Herald Tribune) appears to have been moved to another web site.

I deleted Cite 32 and any questionable/controversial material attached to it that isn't already backed by a following ref. Cite 36 (which is cached) is broken and when I use the original link, it only takes me to the main website and not that particular article. Haven't had any luck finding the source so unfortunately (and frustratingly) I'm going to have to find alternative sources and/or delete some info. Hopefully I could do that within the next two days. I'll address the other two concerns later tonight or tomorrow. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current situations -
- Administration -

Parts of this paragraph: "The Waqf Ministry of Jordan held control of the al-Aqsa Mosque until the 1967 Six-Day War. After Israel's victory in that war, instead of the government taking control of the al-Aqsa Mosque, Israel transferred the control of the mosque and the northern Noble Sanctuary to the Islamic waqf trust, who are independent of the Israeli government. However, Israeli Security Forces are permitted to patrol and conduct searches within the perimeter of the mosque. After the 1969 arson attack, the waqf employed architects, technicians and craftsmen in a committee that carry out regular maintenance operations. In order to counteract Israeli policies and the escalating presence of Israeli security forces around the site since the al-Aqsa Intifada, the Islamic Movement, in cooperation with the waqf, have attempted to increase Muslim control inside the Haram Al-Sharif. Some activities included refurbishing abandoned structures and renovating.[61]" seems to be a straight copy from ref 61, with part of the middle text removed i.e.: "In order to counteract Israeli policies and escalating harassment in the area, the local Arab leadership, in cooperation with the Administration of Waqf and Islamic Affairs, has attempted to boost Moslem presence inside the Haram, and refurbished the majority of previously abandoned structures within the enclosure for office use, such as rooms on the northern side of the Dome platform repaired during the early eighties, which Waqf clergy and other personnel occupy at present. The beautiful domed structure of Al-qubba Al-nuhawiyya, on the southern edge the platform was also restored to serve as the general headquarters of the Mufti of Jerusalem and the Moslem Legislative Court staff, and hosts meetings of the Supreme Moslem Council." I don't know what the Copyright status, if any, of Citation 61.

- Access -

10 Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC) - Citations 65 68 and 6669 do not quote the date of the two references (they are dated), nor the accessdate.[reply]
This subsection is incomplete: it only covers Muslims and Jews. There is no discussion of tourists, some of which may be Christians (but they may not be Muslim, Jewish nor Christian) and what access they have.

- Excavations -

10 Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC) - This section is strongly unbalanced, i.e. it has two paragraphs, the first lists some of Israel's excavations and the second paragraph lists some of Israel's excavations that caused protest.[reply]

Somewhat Improved. Pyrotec (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC) - It is not representative of the {{Main}} article Excavations at the Temple Mount: there is no mention of excavations carried by the Waqf and there is no mention of anticipated future damage/collapse due to lack of trust between the two sides.[reply]

Somewhat Improved. Pyrotec (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead -

Overall, quite a reasonable introduction and summary.
10 Pyrotec (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC) - It does not cover the events of the 20th and 21st centuries, other than the (bland) statement: "Today, the Old City is under Israeli control, but the mosque remains under the administration of the Palestinian-led Islamic waqf.".[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC) - The Lead contains the wikilink Holiest sites in Islam, this is a diambig page, since there are separate articles for Sunni, Shai and Sufi Holy sites. Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A informative, well-reference and well illustrated article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Mostly, but not entirely free of minor biases.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding GA on the basis that most, but not all of the corrective actions have been carried out. Those remaining uncompleted, I do not consider sufficient to merit a "fail" at /GA3. Pyrotec (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll work on the Excavations section some more and for some reason I haven't been able to find useful info on Christian access to the mosque particularly tourist visitation. A lot of the sources I did come across (which didn't give me much info in the first place) don't mention al-Aqsa but the Temple Mount in general. I encourage other interested editors to contribute what they can and I'll keep looking in the meantime. I've been very busy lately and so I want to thank you again for giving me more time to address your concerns. Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]