Talk:Hajj/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shii (talk · contribs) 07:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before I do copyediting and image checks, I would like to see a huge cleanup in the sources used. Nothing published by "PositivePsyche.Biz Corp" will ever be a WP:RS. Islamic sources are good if they are published by reputable imams or Muslim academics, but "Islam For Dummies" is quite weak as a source and hajjumrahguide.com, published by two random people, is completely unacceptable as a source for Muslim practice. Also the citation style is messy in the first place. Shii (tock) 07:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shii, thanks for undertaking the review task. I'm working on providing reliable sources. However, will you please explain what you meant by "citation style is messy" so that it can be corrected. The citations I added earlier were arranged as per citation template. -AsceticRosé 03:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort. I was referring to the stray references like "Peters, F. E., p. 71" and "Hamza Yusuf, Pilgrims with a Purpose" that lack necessary information to identify what is being cited. Hamza Yusuf is an example of a source that would be excellent to use if we could supply his citation with a page number and ISBN. I'll keep an eye on this page if you have any further questions. Shii (tock) 03:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I used "Peters, F. E., p. 71"-like references because a full citation has already been provided above about Peters (here currently the citation no. 16 in this article), but I'm not sure if I should use the full citation every time about the same reference. If the latter is the case, I will change them. (This issue was confusing me for a long time).

Another inquiry is will the website islamqa.info and iqrasense be regarded as RS? However, I'm trying to find better sources. Thanks -AsceticRosé 04:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. You are mixing two different styles of citation. You can see when citations can be shortened here: I Ching <-- In this article, the number of books being cited has been cut down to the bare essentials and there are no extra webpages in the footnotes. You can also see that there is a link taking you to the full name of each specific book, which makes things easier for people seeking out sources.

IslamQA looks like a popular website, but who is it operating under? How can a non-Muslim reader know that they are representative of mainstream Muslim practice? IqraSense looks worse than that, I have doubts that it is an RS. You should be thinking about how general readers often want to verify the information in the article, and how we can direct them to quality sources. Websites are convenient but might not be the best option. Shii (tock) 04:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shii, I have cleaned up the reference section as far as possible. Will you please have a look? -AsceticRosé 09:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shii, are you currently active on Wikipedia? -AsceticRosé 14:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I got distracted halfway through checking your sources.

Although a FA might require more rigorous sources than this, it seems that you have found reliable sources for everything and there are no longer any dubious statements in the article. I checked the use of images and everything looks good there too. The article's general layout and prose is admirable and close to FA quality. I don't see any other problems for GA. Shii (tock) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't intended as a proper GA review, but just reading through this I had a bunch of questions:

Tawaf: reading this section I didn't understand what this word meant. The article doesn't wikilink it. There's a truly mystifying sentence that introduces the section: "The pilgrims perform an arrival tawaf either as part of Umrah or as an welcome tawaf." The article then explains things done during tawaf without saying whether they define or make up the entirety of tawaf.
Al-Safa and Al-Marwah: the article does a poor job of conveying where these hills are located and doesn't include images of the gallery between them that I see in the linked article.
Costs: the article talks about programs by other governments to help with costs, and mentions a sacrifice voucher program, but doesn't detail what the costs are. It should start with a general figure of how much the pilgrims are told they should budget, then break it down more specifically.
Quotas: how does the Saudi government decide how to set the national quotas (is there a formula, or is it a matter of foreign relations?) and from within each national quota, who to allow to enter for hajj and who to exclude each year?
Mount Arafat: Neither this article nor that one explains who is allowed to preach from the mountain or how they are chosen.

Wnt (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article has already become a good one months ago, still I've addressed some of the issues raised above. The issues of Tawaf and Al-Safa and Al-Marwah have been addressed as further improvement. Thanks for pointing out those shortcomings. --AsceticRosé 15:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]