Talk:Islam/GA2

GA Review

Passed. AviationFreak💬 15:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original review

Dunkloesteus77

I applaud you for being the first to tackle the Abrahamic religions. I see you earlier attempted a review with Christianity and, in my opinion, you faced a lot of unfair criticism, so if you'd like to renominate it, I'd be happy to review it after this one Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of citation needed tags in the article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had cleaned up all the tags but five days ago a user went on a tagging spree and I appreciate their concern for improvement! Working on addressing their citation needed tags. Sodicadl (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I would've put them there if they hadn't, at minimum every paragraph should end with a reference Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed a fair bit of this material. Much of it entailed fairly trivial details at the end of paragraphs, some was duplicative to material elsewhere in the page, and other parts were simply a bit undue in the context of the breadth of this topic. I've left in the tagged material that I believe is of importance/broad interest. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a lot of citation needed tags which need to be addressed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's still citation needed tags Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another was added in January. Done. Sodicadl (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first note is unsourced and doesn't make mathematical sense. If the stress has 2 options, the s has 2 options, and the a has 3 options, then shouldn't there be 2 * 2 * 3 = 12 ways to pronounce it? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is removed now. I tried to find a reference for it but I don't think there is any. Sodicadl (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you're doing number ranges, you should use the n-dash – instead of the hyphen - Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're inconsistent about using sfnp or rp to designate page numbers, you should stick to sfnp Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"provide a secondary constitutional model for Muslims" you should spell out that the Quran is the primary Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done? Constitutional model refers to Muhammad's normative example, so I took out 'secondary'. Sodicadl (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"in descending order" and "respectively" are redundant Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Reworded to take out respectively. Sodicadl (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should bring up Muslim conquest at some point in the lead, especially because you later say trade and missions had a lot to do with Muslim expansion Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe another user did this. Sodicadl (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"traditionally dated during the reign of" I would remove "dated" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded now. Sodicadl (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should use % instead of spelling out percent Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're inconsistent with how you're using italics and capitalization in Acts of worship. The 1st time you bring up shahada it's capitalized and un-italicized, but the 2nd time it's lower case and italicized, for example. Sometimes you italicize Arabic words, like wudu, and sometimes you don't, like as-salah Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word "obligatory" implies every single Muslim does all of these, which is untrue Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Obligatory' is translating for fard. That article uses the word 'duty' so switched to 'duty' instead. Sodicadl (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Performing prayers five times a day is compulsory" yes it's said in the Quran that you have to as a Muslim, but not every Muslim will pray 5 times a day. Maybe just specify that the Quran tells people to do this? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Compulsory' is translating for fard. That article uses the word 'duty' so switched to 'duty' instead. Sodicadl (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're inconsistent with writing Kaaba or Ka'bah Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. Like other terms in the article, gave the alternative spellings when the term is first mentioned and then used the most common version of word throughout rest of article. Sodicadl (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure every paragraph ends with a reference Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"having also served as a shelter for the poor" this makes it sound like the only reason it's important for Muslims to meet with Masjid an-Nabawi (which is odd wording in itself) is because Masjid an-Nabawi served in the past (but not anymore) as a homeless shelter Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote sentence, hopefully this is better. Sodicadl (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Minarets are towers used to call the adhan" this sentence should go with where you fist bring up adhan. You're also inconsistent italicizing adhan Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. The Manual of Style recommends to use italics for foreign words that are not used everyday in English.[1] The word adhan seems to be used in English for the Islamic call to prayer more than using the term "Islamic call to prayer" so I took the italics out now for all occurrences. Sodicadl (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're inconsistent with using ā when spelling zakat Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. There was consensus that if sources give differing transliterations to list them at first mention of the word but then consistently use the most common transliteration for rest of the article.[2][3] Thus, using "zakat". Sodicadl (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"well-off owe to the needy" remove "to" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"wealth is seen as a 'trust from God's bounty' and is seen as a 'purification' of one's excess wealth" are these quotes coming from the Quran? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now. I can see how the wording was confusing. Sodicadl (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"is a much encouraged supererogatory charity" it'd be good to explain the word supererogatory Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done now at the lead of the section since the word appears multiple times in that section. Sodicadl (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to use simpler words, like "optional" for example Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"which financed hospitals and schools" does it not exist anymore? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified it now. Sodicadl (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"there are other days when fasting is supererogatory" such as? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sodicadl (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Medina is also a site of Islamic pilgrimage and Jerusalem, the city of many Islamic prophets, contains the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which used to be the direction of prayer before Mecca" it seems like a word is missing here Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with this sentence, nothing is missing.

it's most certainly a sentence fragment, is it supposed to be a list? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There were more than a word missing. Sodicadl (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"has been described as an excellent act of worship" by whom? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The source didn't say exactly that so rewrote sentence. Sodicadl (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"begins with the recitation of the Quran" certainly not the entire Quran? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That content was not mentioned in the source cited so it is removed now. Sodicadl (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"who, it is said, will be able to" it says this in the Quran? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The source says it is from the hadith, so it is now mentioned as such. Sodicadl (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to say when supplication would normally take place Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
link bedouin Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Born in Mecca in 570, Muhammad was orphaned early in life" seems like because he was born in Mecca, he obviously was orphaned early in life Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not seem so. This is a very common way of writing short biographical overviews.

Done. The way the sentence fragments were arranged, it looked like the first sentence fragment was the part that comes after "because". Should be better now. Sodicadl (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"leaving out weaker segments of society without protection" you don't need "out" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"He acquired the nickname 'trustworthy' " how? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote it but I'm not sure if it is better. Sodicadl (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should specify CE when you bring up 570, not way later at 610 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Meccan elite profited from the pilgrimages to the idols of the Kaaba and felt Muhammad was destabilizing their social order" maybe you should say "but" instead of "and" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Still, feel that "and" works better because it is not contrasting - a significant reason the Meccan elite felt Muhammad was destabilizing was because the Meccan elite profited from pilgrimages to the idols that Muhammad was preaching against. Sodicadl (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that wasn't clear at all Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you should clarify this point Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. Sodicadl (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent spelling of Mu'awiyah with or without the h Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The list of alternate spelling was added to the main article of Mu'awiya and made consistent spelling on this article using most commonly used spelling. Sodicadl (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"During the early Abbasid era, scholars such as Bukhari and Muslim compiled" use their full names Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wikilink Sufism on first mention Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"conform to the Mutazila idea of the creation of the Quran" inconsistent spelling of Mutazila, and also what is this referring to? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Made spelling consistent. Also, elaborated a little and put in hyperlink. Sodicadl (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"sought to harmonize Aristotle's metaphysics within Islam" what does this mean? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded it a little simpler, I hope it's better now. Sodicadl (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Many non Muslims" use hyphen Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The vast Abbasid empire proved impossible to hold together" did they expand the empire after the Umayyads? You never say Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better without that sentence so reworded without it. Sodicadl (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some dates and locations regarding the fall of the Abbasid empire would be good, like mention when those soldiers splintered off dynasties and where they were centered, when the Fatimid dynasty took control of North Africa, when Shia Century is, etc. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and stealing the Black Stone" the Black Stone has never been mentioned Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborated and added hyperlink. Sodicadl (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You randomly jump from the decline of the Abbasids to Islam in the far east, then the section ends, and you start up with syncretism in the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans in the 14th century, and then jump all the way back to the end of the Abbasids in the 13th century Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears random but each paragraph has its own topic, so it is not 100% chronological like a timeline. I rewrote it now to make the first sentence of each of the paras to explain what the paragraph is about, let me know if that helps. Sodicadl (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should mention the Mongols converted to Islam, and if you're gonna talk about the history of Muslims in China you should bring up the Mongol Yuan Dynasty Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent spelling of Ismaili Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Its own article uses Isma'ili rather than Ismaili so staying consistent with the more prominent version. Sodicadl (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the need for the quote in the Pre-modern section, are you trying to describe syncretism? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understood it as the editor conveying there is syncretism. Perhaps the quote is not needed. I took it out and mentioned about syncretism instead. Sodicadl (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Turks probably found similarities between Sufi rituals and Shaman practices.[239] Muslim Turks incorporated elements of Turkish Shamanism beliefs to Islam." redundant to say both of these Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Took out first sentence. Sodicadl (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should first wikilink Muslims in China in the last sentence of the Classical Age section when you first mention them. Maybe here should clarify foreign Muslims in China were forced to assimilate, as it kinda reads there were no ethnically Chinese Muslims Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is wikilinked already. I now changed the hyperlink to make it more clear. Sodicadl (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"sometimes by force" like threat of death or...? Is this still the Yuan Dynasty? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Ming Dynasty, I mentioned it as such now. "sometimes by force" the punishment for flouting laws mandating intermarriage was beating and enslavement but I think that might be too much detail so I now elaborated that it was by laws rather than forced by society. Sodicadl (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Mongol Khanates in Iran and Central Asia converted to Islam and those regions benefited from increased cross-cultural access to East Asia under Mongol rule" seems to say their conversion to Islam directly led to cross-cultural access to East Asia Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded, hope its better now. Sodicadl (talk) 01:03" w, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
"Gunpowder empires" inconsistent capitals Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Its own article does not capitalize g. Sodicadl (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're inconsistent in writing out centuries or not (for example, "19th century" vs "fifteenth century") Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You catch things that go over my head. Good eye! I thought since the wikipedia article titles for each century goes with the numeral version, I standardized them to numerals. Sodicadl (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"where the state monopolized religious scholarship and are often seen as puppets of the state" who are the puppets? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how that is confusing. Reworded, hope it is better now. Sodicadl (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Salafism was funded for its quietism" where? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"since they stood out and worshiped their own god" as opposed to whose god? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source was talking about the Muslims been targeted for having separate traditions, so reworded to match that. Sodicadl (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"presented a new breed of" who was the old breed? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a relatively new para with a touch of recentism and undue weight for something happening to be topical. Changed to what the first source listed talks about. Sodicadl (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"About 23.4% of the global population" as of what year? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It has been estimated that" by whom? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"with a minority belonging to" as in <1%? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Took that out, the source actually says, "Given the relatively small numbers of people associated with such groups, this report does not provide separate figures for them" Sodicadl (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the Sunni sections you say a lot of names which are not wikilinked or explained at all, they're just kinda there, like Asharism or Maliki Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wikilinked them now. Sodicadl (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the names you just listed are considered traditionalist? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded. Hope its better now. Sodicadl (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is Salafi? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Khawarij movement? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sodicadl (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Mysticism 3rd par, why is Sufism italicized? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be referring to the 2nd paragraph, I corrected that now. Sodicadl (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've been extremely busy and delaying this article for a really long time, I'll ask someone else to finish the review (hopefully in a more timely manner) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. There is no rush. Sodicadl (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Various opinions

Vice regent

Sodicadl, in response to this message, were you looking for me to review this article, or assist you in improving the article in response to recommendations made by Dunkleosteus77?VR _talk 21:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assist in improving the article in response to recommendations made by Dunkleosteus77. Sodicadl (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals00

I suggest moving the sentence "Islamic scientific achievements encompassed a wide range of subject areas especially medicine, mathematics, astronomy, agriculture as well as physics, economics, engineering and optics.", from the lead to the section "Classical era (750–1258)", since the achievements were not only scientific, and many non Muslims were part of these achievements (such as Hunayn ibn Ishaq, Bukhtishu, Masawaiyh, etc); the preceding sentence is sufficient for lead. It is also worth mentioning under the section "Classical era (750–1258)" that non-Muslims were part of these achievements during the Islamic Golden Age as many of scholars of the House of Wisdom were Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians; for example the article in the section "Classical era (750–1258)", includes a photo of an eye manuscript by Hunain ibn Ishaq, who was a Nestorian Christian. Capitals00 (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe another user added what you are requesting. Sodicadl (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Æo

The accounts SonoCat and Riopex recently made many edits to this article. Please check their edits, as they have been blocked as sockpuppets of Jobas and Rajputbhatti, respectively, and both are known for pushing pro-Christian and anti-Islamic bias.--Æo (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. However, some of their edits were still with cited sources. There was a list of further reading that I took out that were obviously polemic and not much academic value. Sodicadl (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amyipdev

I looked through the article, and it's very good - would definitely give it GA status. There were some small issues I noticed, I sent in some edits to correct them. Most Islamic articles are significantly devoid of neutrality and lacking in qualifiers; this article does much better in that, and due to its depth, I would 100% recommend it for GA. --Amyipdev (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti

I'll take a moment this week to investigate the article for the GA criteria but I have a question for @Sodicadl: Catholic Encyclopedia is listed as a source in the references but I was unable to find where it is cited. Speaking out of an abundance of caution, I would discourage using that particular source for articles on Islam-related articles due to its highly polemic nature. I say this as someone who has regularly leaned on the CE for articles related to liturgy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for consideration into this! I am looking through the sources and will be taking out anything not actually cited. Sodicadl (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion from Midnightblueowl

Having had some experience with getting religion themed articles through GAN and FAC over the years, I thought I'd offer a second opinion, if it is still needed. Although a lot of good work has clearly been done here, I'm quite concerned by the use of referencing throughout the article. Multiple different styles of citation are employed, and often books and articles are cited without the specific page numbers that are relevant being cited. I can see at least one sentence without any supporting citation. In my view, this article does not meet the Good Article criteria at the present time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, just to check, do you think this review should be closed as failed? The backlog drive is ongoing, and I want to double-check if you want to close this review or if you think another reviewer should take it over for the drive. Vaticidalprophet 22:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet Yes, I do think that the review should be closed as failed. Ideally, the first reviewer should be the one to close it, but if they are not around I can do so myself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is too fair to close it already. I did standardize the citation styles compared to before and if it is still not similar enough in format I can fix that if you can illustrate an example. Failing it like this without spelling out your concerns (I'll acknowledge that the complaint of lacking page numbers is a specific complaint) means no one knows exactly what you're looking for so it can be known when to renominate. I understand that there is a backlog but prematurely closing should not be a solution. Sodicadl (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the context, I've re-added this to the "new reviewer needed" list for the backlog drive. Given it's now the only eligible article over 270 or even 180 days old, it'll hopefully have some attention soon. Vaticidalprophet 00:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll pick this one up. I'll hopefully have an in-depth prose review starting from "Mysticism" since that's where the previous review left off. I'll also be looking through references and reading over past comments to make sure that everything talked about is looked at. Might be a bit of a challenge, but we'll get there. AviationFreak💬 03:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Review

~~Starting at the beginning of the "Mysticism" section.~~ Beginning at the start of the article. This is a little more detailed than I would typically do for a GA due to the size and importance of the subject.

Thank you for taking this on. I do realize it is a lot of work. Sodicadl (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I recognize it will be a lot of work for you as well (more, in fact). Thank you for the effort you're putting in, this is a very widely-viewed and important article for us to get right. AviationFreak💬 03:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of places where commas are misplaced. This is something beyond the scope of a GA assessment, but WP:GOCE will likely be able to help if desired (especially if this article is headed for FAC). I'll try to do a more thorough read-through tomorrow to identify good places for ref-checks and fix some of the smaller things (i.e., things not noted here) then, but it looks like Dunkleosteus77 caught a lot earlier on.

I know at least the first sentence of the second para in the lede looked like a run on so split that in two. Sodicadl (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is needed between "Quran" and "Qur'an".

Since the Arabic transliterations are going to vary, it was decided before in the talk page to go with the most common form so I changed them now to Quran. Sodicadl (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intro to "Articles of faith" indicates the "divine decree" as an article, but the later section is titled "Divine predestination" which does not seem synonymous to me. "Revelation" and "Scripture", while similar in context, should probably also be made more consistent.

'predestination' is closer to the specific relevant article so standardized it with that word. Changed subheading to 'revelation'. Sodicadl (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Jibrīl" is used after the mention of Gabriel in "Scripture", but not in the first mention (in "Angels"). Suggest moving to first mention and adding a transliteration for Michael as well. "Jibreel" is also used later in the article; these transliterations and which name is used should be standardized.

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a prophet delivering a new book to a nation is called a rasul (رسول‎, rasūl), meaning "messenger". This seems out of place to me.

Rasul are subset of anbiya. Let me know if this is any better Sodicadl (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent capitalization of "sunnah"

Only rule from manual of style for works of scripture [4] is to be standard throughout article so changed them all to lower case since that is what seems most common in sources. Sodicadl (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth including the exceptions to the duty of fasting (traveling, menstruation, children, etc.), especially as that paragraph is pretty short.
Pilgrims spend a day and a night on the plains of Mina, then a day praying and worshipping in the plain of Mount Arafat, then spending a night on the plain of Muzdalifah; then moving to Jamarat, symbolically stoning the Devil, then going to the city of Mecca and walking seven times around the Kaaba, which Muslims believe Abraham built as a place of worship, then walking seven times between Mount Safa and Mount Marwah recounting the steps of Abraham's wife, Hagar, while she was looking for water for her baby Ishmael in the desert before Mecca developed into a settlement. - This sentence should be split at least once.

Done. Summarized it a little more. Sodicadl (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recitation/memorization and supplication/remembrance sections are not part of the five pillars (like everything else in that section) and are both relatively short. It should probably be stated in the sections themselves that these are supererogatory, and they could be merged into a "supererogatory acts" section or fleshed out with more information.

Done, merged into a "supererogatory acts" section. Sodicadl (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was born in Mecca in 570 CE and was orphaned early in life. Growing up as a trader, he became known as the "trusted one" (Arabic: الامين), and was sought after as an impartial arbitrator. He later married his employer, the businesswoman Khadija. - This needs to be sourced.

Done, that was all part of one source. Sodicadl (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution of Medina was signed by all the tribes of Medina, establishing among the Muslim and non-Muslim communities religious freedoms and freedom to use their own laws and agreeing to bar weapons from Medina and to defend it from external threats. - This should probably be split or reworded.

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term is also used to refer to later groups such as Isis. - What term, "Kharijites"?

It's specified now. Sodicadl (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While some were quietist, others believed in violence against those opposing them even other Muslims, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, who would even attempt to recreate the modern gold dinar as their monetary system. - This sentence is ungrammatical.

Reworded. I think it is better now. Sodicadl (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isma'ili Shias, whose teachings root in Gnosticism and Neoplatonism, as well as by the Illuminationist and Isfahan schools of Islamic philosophy have developed mystical interpretations of Islam. - This sentence is ungrammatical.

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sufis see tasawwuf as an inseparable part of Islam, just like the sharia. - As sharia has not yet been explained in the article, this comparison is unhelpful.

Fair point, removed that. Sodicadl (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salafism is MOS:DUPLINKed, and should probably be given a short inline description (maybe something like "...from followers of the Sunni revivalist Salafi movement...").

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sufi influenced Ahle Sunnat movement or Barelvi movement defends Sufi practices and beliefs with over 200 million followers in south Asia. - Shouldn't the first word be "Sufism"? This sentence should be reworded, as "defends Sufi practices with over 200 million followers" sounds WP:POV-y due to the framing as "defending".

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a few problems with duplinks in general. I've not used it before, but there are tools that can assist in finding and removing duplinks. This is a more minor concern for a GA nomination and will not be make-or-break, but still something to be on the lookout for.
There are ongoing debates whether sharia is compatible with secular forms of government... - Needs "about" or "as to" after "debates".

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The four major Sunni schools are the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali madhahs - Needs "and" before "Hanbali"

Done. There was also inconsistent use of plural for madhab, one with English plural and other with Arabic plural, so that was fixed. Sodicadl (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ghair muqallid redirects to Salafi without an explanation. The last three sentences in "Schools of jurisprudence" are confusing and do not explain the reasoning behind taqlid. Is it a bad thing to engage in taqlid? Does not engaging in it imply that one engages in ijtihad?

Redirect to relevant section. It has been argued whether taqlid is bad or good, so reworded it to make it sound less negative and more neutral. I hope it is more clear. Sodicadl (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islam, like Judaism, has no clergy in the sacerdotal sense... - I'd recommend removing "like Judaism", as that just opens the door for "what about Protestant Christianity?" (among, I'm sure, other religions without sacerdotal clergy).

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent use of "sharia" and "shariah"; anglicization is an inexact thing, but we should be consistent within articles.

Done. "sharia" is what is used most commonly so standardized with that. Sodicadl (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest wikilinking interest.

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another feature is the avoidance of uncertainty, which is seen as gambling and Islamic banks traditionally avoid derivative instruments such as futures or options which substantially protected them from the 2008 financial crisis. - This could be taken to mean that the "avoidance of uncertainty" is seen as gambling. The 2008 financial crisis may be one example of this protection, but I would suggest either including other examples or rephrasing to something like "which has historically protected them from market downturns".

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The state used to be involved in distribution of charity from the treasury, known as Bayt al-mal, before it became a largely individual pursuit. - Which "state", and how long ago did this responsibility change hands?

Done, added the year according to the source and the names of the states. Sodicadl (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

each man, woman and child - Suggest just saying "each citizen" or something similar

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This could refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection with the Shia and Sufis in particular, distinguishing between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare. - What is meant by "with the Shia and Sufis in particular"? The "distinguishing between..." phrase also does not follow smoothly from the first part of the sentence.

From the encyclopedia of Islam source Shias emphasize the greater jihad within oneself. I rewrote it, I hope it is a little smoother now. Sodicadl (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All meat must come from a herbivorous animal slaughtered in the name of God by a Muslim, Jew, or Christian - I'm not an expert by any means, but wouldn't it be more accurate to just say "follower of an Abrahamic religion"? There are others besides the "big three" (Baha'i, Rastafarianism), and I suspect that an individual follow something Abrahamic rather than belong to one of three specific groups is the more accurate doctrine (this could very well be wrong though, just a suspicion). Will take a closer look at source review time. I see the text about "People of the Book" now.
Gold and silk for men are prohibited. - Why? Are they permissible for women?

This one would be difficult because like many religious rules there may not be a explicit reason given behind them but the sources usually mention the rationale along the lines of not being extravagant so added that in. Sodicadl (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haya, often translated as "shame" or "modesty", is sometimes described as the innate character of Islam Source and our article both use the term "modesty", and our article uses "shyness". Don't see it being translated as "shame", which has much more negative connotations, from a cursory look.
After the birth of a child, the adhan is pronounced in the right ear. - I'm no expert, but from my background knowledge I thought this was done with the Shahada. Don't have time tonight to comb through the source, but I'll likely come back to it. Similarly, I thought the Shahada was whispered into the ear of a dying person (not them saying it, as is noted in the next paragraph, though that may be the case as well).

The Shahada is recited by the dying person even if others may recite to them and added the citation for that. The source for the adhan mentions "Another practice is whispering the call to prayer into the newborn's right ear". Sodicadl (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding inheritance, a son's share is double that of a daughter's. - The Quran is a primary source and probably should not be used to source claims. If secondary sources don't cover it, it's probably not worth including in the article (especially for a topic as well-covered as this one).

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we mention a restriction on making images of animate beings, it might be worth adding something about how this is especially contentious for depictions of Muhammad.

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Muslims are religiously non-practicing individuals who still identify with Islam due to family backgrounds, personal experiences, or the social and cultural environment in which they grew up, with certain national and ethnic rituals, rather than merely religious faith. - Could probably be split into two sentences, but either way, "merely" should be reworded/removed.

Done, it was a little repetitive so shortened it. Sodicadl (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian writers criticized Islamic salvation optimism and its carnality. - This needs to be reworded for clarity and readability.

Rewrote it to make it more clear. Sodicadl (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Criticism" section, particularly paragraph 2, are a bit underreferenced and could do with a little beefing up both in terms of sourcing and prose. This is, of course, one of the hardest places in the article to strike a neutral POV, but I think it does a reasonable job right now.

Citing Ibn Kammuna is more of a primary source, so took that one out. The second paragraph is on one issue of many points of criticism so shortened it for more due weight. Sodicadl (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I have for prose right now. I'll do a full GOCE-style copyedit tomorrow and then take a look at a lot of sources. Please let me know if you have any questions. I'm also aware that I might have a slight unconscious bias here and I am on the lookout for that (raised in a protestant American church, though now pretty separated from that ideology), but please feel free to challenge something I say/suggest if you feel it is incorrect or undue. AviationFreak💬 04:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Islam itself was historically called Mohammedanism in the English-speaking world. This term has fallen out of use and is sometimes said to be offensive, as it suggests that a human being, rather than God, is central to Muslims' religion, parallel to Buddha in Buddhism. [Wilson, Kenneth G. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. ISBN 0-231-06989-8. p. 291: "Muhammadan and Mohammedan are based on the name of the prophet Mohammed, and both are considered offensive."]:
N The quote in the footnote is correct, but it doesn't provide support for all of the claims made in the passage. More sources need to be added.

Added another source that accounts for the claim that it is considered offensive and for the claim that it is offensive because a human is at the center of the religion. Sodicadl (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The central concept of Islam is tawḥīd (Arabic: توحيد), the oneness of God. It is usually thought of as a precise monotheism, but is also panentheistic in Islamic mystical teachings. [Esposito (2002b), pp. 74–76], [Esposito (2004), p. 22], [Griffith & Savage (2006), p. 248], ["Tawhid". Encyclopædia Britannica.]:
? - The Britannica source seems to be the only one I could find this information in. Esposito's 2002 work doesn't mention tawhid on p. 74 (couldn't access 75/76 on Google Books) and it's not mentioned on page 22 of his 2004 work either. Griffith & Savage do not appear to mention it on p. 248 of their work, leaving only Britannica (which does support the claims very well but is questionably reliable. I'd definitely remove the non-Britannica sources as they don't support the claims, and ideally non-Britannica sources that do support the claims should be added.

Took out the non-Britannica sources and added one from Encyclopedia of Islam, except only Britannica is supporting the part about mystic panentheism. Sodicadl (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

God is seen as incomparable and without partners such as in the Christian Trinity, and associating partners to God or attributing God's attributes to others is seen as idolatory, called shirk. God is seen as transcendent of creation and so is beyond comprehension. Thus, Muslims are not iconodules and do not attribute forms to God. God is instead described and referred to by several names or attributes, the most common being Ar-Rahmān (الرحمان) meaning "The Entirely Merciful," and Ar-Rahīm (الرحيم) meaning "The Especially Merciful" which are invoked at the beginning of most chapters of the Quran. [Ali, Kecia; Leaman, Oliver (2008). Islam : the key concepts. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-39638-7. OCLC 123136939.]:

"The Problem of Early Islamic Diversity in Anatolia: Rethinking Dervish Piety Through Pantheistic Ideas" by Resul Ay (2023) mentions " tawhid beliefs in a pantheistic sense represented by Sufis such as al Hallaj and al Bistami". However, this source is behind a paywall. Alternatively, "Three Mystics Walk into a Tavern" by James C. Harrington, Sidney G. Hall III states on page. 53 in a footnote on tawhid: "For Muslim mystics and Sufis, however, tawhid has a panentheistic sense, that God is present in all of creation." Martin E. Marty, ‎R. Scott Appleby (2004) state: "Tawhid can also have a pantheistic meaning, that is, God is the sum of that existence" (p. 500). I can imagine this aprt is easily misinterpreted, thus I hope I can help out with offering a few sources regarding this matter.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? - Needs page number(s). As no page number exists in this citation, I was unable to determine the accuracy of these claims. The book does not appear to have all of this information in one place, but I wouldn't be surprised if one could find it in various places throughout the book (which can be checked out and accessed through that link). However, this would require multiple citations with multiple page numbers (i.e., not just citing it at the end of the paragraph without a page number).
While Muhammad was alive, these revelations were written down by his companions, although the primary method of transmission was orally through memorization. [Al Faruqi; Lois Ibsen (1987). "The Cantillation of the Qur'an". Asian Music (Autumn – Winter 1987): 3–4.]:
Y - Source confirms claims (all appears to be on p. 3 though).
Islam is sometimes argued to have a very simple creed with the shahada being the premise for the rest of the religion. Non-Muslims wishing to convert to Islam are required to recite the shahada in front of witnesses. [Kasim, Husain. "Islam". In Salamone (2004), pp. 195–197.], [Farah (1994), p. 135.], [Galonnier, Juliette. "Moving In or Moving Toward? Reconceptualizing Conversion to Islam as a Liminal Process1". Moving In and Out of Islam, edited by Karin van Nieuwkerk, New York, US: University of Texas Press, 2021, pp. 44-66.]:
Y - Salamone (2004) supports the "premise for the rest of the religion" claim, and the Galonnier source (access needed) supports the second sentence on p. 44. The "very simple creed" claim is supported on p. 54 as part of a block quote from a convert (i.e., probably not the most reliable source), but since it's prefaced by "sometimes argued" I think it's ok. The Farah source does not appear to support the claims and is about the process for preparing oneself for prayer.

Took out the Farah source. Sodicadl (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zakat (Arabic: زكاة, zakāh), also spelled Zakāt or Zakah, is a type of almsgiving characterized by the giving of a fixed portion (2.5% annually) of accumulated wealth by those who can afford it to help the poor or needy, such as for freeing captives, those in debt, or for (stranded) travellers, and for those employed to collect zakat. It acts as a form of welfare in Muslim societies. [Ahmed, Medani, and Sebastian Gianci. "Zakat." p. 479 in Encyclopedia of Taxation and Tax Policy.], [Ariff, Mohamed (1991). The Islamic Voluntary Sector in Southeast Asia: Islam and the Economic Development of Southeast Asia. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. pp. 55–.]:
Y - The ETTP source ("Zakat" is only an entry in the 2005 edition) supports the 2.5% claim and many of the other details (though the FN is placed immediately after the parenthetical mention of 2.5%). I am unable to fully access the second source, but I can perform limited text-based searches on Google Books and it appears that zakat as a form of welfare is mentioned on p. 55. Given that the first source already supports much of what is cited to the second source and that the second source appears as much as possible to be supporting what is claimed, I'm happy to say this is very likely cited properly.
The total annual value contributed due to zakat is 15 times greater than global humanitarian aid donations, using conservative estimates. [5]:
N - Got a 502 Bad Gateway error; may be a WP:DEADLINK.

Fixed. Sodicadl (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pious Muslims recite the whole Quran during the month of Ramadan. [6] p. 42-43:
? - Source states "since Muslims believe the Qur'an was first revealed during the holy month of Ramadan... many people recite one juz' each day and therefore complete the reading of the Qur'an during the month." I'd suggest changing "pious" to "many", but ultimately I don't think this majorly misrepresents the source.

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After 12 years of the persecution of Muslims by the Meccans, Muhammad and his companions performed the Hijra ("emigration") in 622 to the city of Yathrib (current-day Medina). There, with the Medinan converts (the Ansar) and the Meccan migrants (the Muhajirun), Muhammad in Medina established his political and religious authority. The Constitution of Medina was signed by all the tribes of Medina, establishing among the Muslim and non-Muslim communities religious freedoms and freedom to use their own laws and agreeing to bar weapons from Medina and to defend it from external threats. [Serjeant (1978), p. 4.]:
N - While the source appears to discuss some details of the Hijra, page 4 does not contain support of these claims. I've been unable to find pages in the source that support all of the claims here (Ctrl+F doesn't seem to work super reliably on this piece), but it may be that they exist in the source (just not on p. 4). More pages or different sourcing are needed.
By 629 Muhammad was victorious in the nearly bloodless conquest of Mecca, and by the time of his death in 632 (at age 62) he had united the tribes of Arabia into a single religious polity. [Buhl, F.; Welch, A.T. "Muhammad". In Encyclopaedia of Islam Online (n.d.).]:
Y - Source link is now a 404, but I found a version online (access through WP:TWL may be required), and it appears to support the claims in its "Muḥammad" entry.
Uthman was elected in 644 and his assassination by rebels led to Ali being elected the next Caliph. In the First Civil War, Muhammad's widow, Aisha, raised an army against Ali, attempting to avenge the death of Uthman, but was defeated at the Battle of the Camel. Ali attempted to remove the governor of Syria, Mu'awiya, who was seen as corrupt. Mu'awiya then declared war on Ali and was defeated in the Battle of Siffin. Ali's decision to arbitrate angered the Kharijites, an extremist sect, who felt that by not fighting a sinner, Ali became a sinner as well. The Kharijites rebelled and were defeated in the Battle of Nahrawan but a Kharijite assassin later killed Ali. Ali's son, Hasan ibn Ali, was elected Caliph and signed a peace treaty to avoid further fighting, abdicating to Mu'awiya in return for Mu'awiya not appointing a successor. [Holt & Lewis (1977), pp. 67-72.]:
? - Likely not in the source, but I'm not positive I have the right source. This is the best I could find; apparently the work (originally published in 1970) was "reprinted in 1977 with amendments and each volume divided into two", but what I could get my hands on was the 1970 version. The 1970 version contains no mention of the "Battle of the Camel" or "Battle of Siffin" (those seemed to be the best terms to look for, especially as page numbers would likely differ between the two editions). Can't be sure that this wasn't added in the 1977 amendments, but I think it's unlikely. More sources are likely needed here.
The Murji'ah taught that people's righteousness could be judged by God alone. Therefore, wrongdoers might be considered misguided, but not denounced as unbelievers. This attitude came to prevail into mainstream Islamic beliefs. [Blankinship (2008), p. 43.], [Esposito (2010), p. 87.]:
Blankenship: Y - The Blankinship source supports the first two sentences.

Esposito: N - The final sentence is not supported by the Esposito source. It states that the Umayyad system of a dual (Sharia/Grievance) court system has "continued throughout Islamic history" and is employed in some countries today (e.g., Saudi Arabia). From what I can tell this is not related to the Murji'ah teaching described in the article's prior sentences.

I believe the Esposito source cited is the fourth edition from 2010 not the 2005 one that you linked. Page 87 says "This attitude came to prevail in mainstream Islam." Sodicadl (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caliphs such as Mamun al Rashid and Al-Mu'tasim made [Mu'tazila] an official creed and unsuccessfully attempted to force their position on the majority. [Esposito (2010), p. 88.]:
? - Is supported by the source, just on page 71 (not 88). Source only appears to mention Mamun, not Al-Mu'tasim.

It is mentioned in Esposito 4th edition pg 88. I believe you linked the 3rd edition. Sodicadl (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The government paid scientists the equivalent salary of professional athletes today. [Ahmed (2006), pp. 23, 42, 84]:
Y - Claim is supported on page 42 of the source. Don't know why 23 & 84 are in there as well.
Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201–1274) proposed the mathematical model that was later adopted by Copernicus unrevised in his heliocentric model, and Jamshīd al-Kāshī's estimate of pi would not be surpassed for 180 years. [7]:
? - Source only describes the al-Kāshī claim (though the al-Tusi claim appears on his page and should be cited as well). Source states it was "almost 200 years" before his estimate of pi was surpassed, but 180 isn't far off that and is probably accurate. As far as the al-Tusi claim, his bio states that while "many historians claim" Copernicus adopted his work, there is some disagreement among experts. I don't love either of these interpretations of the sources (not being consistent in the number and not explaining the full story with Copernicus), but I'm comfortable assuming good faith since they don't seem to misrepresent the sources in a POV way.

Added the Tusi source and changed the language to be closer to the source. Sodicadl (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Migration from Syria and Lebanon was the biggest contributor to the Muslim population in Latin America. The resulting urbanization and increase in trade in sub-Saharan Africa brought Muslims to settle in new areas and spread their faith, likely doubling its Muslim population between 1869 and 1914. [Bulliet (2005), p. 722]
? - Source supports the main likely-to-be-challenged claim here (the doubling of Sub-Saharan Africa's Muslim population, 1869-1914, due to increased urbanization/trade), but does not seem to mention migration from Syria/Lebanon to Latin America. Another source will be needed for that claim.

There is no source to be found for "biggest" but added a source for it being a contributor to the Muslim population in Latin America. Sodicadl (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness is much celebrated in Islam and, in criminal law, while imposing a penalty on an offender in proportion to their offense is considered permissible; forgiving the offender is better. To go one step further by offering a favor to the offender is regarded as the peak of excellence. [Leaman (2006), p. 214.], [Nigosian (2004), p. 116.]:
Y Leaman source certainly does its part in supporting "Forgiveness is much celebrated in Islam", and the Nigosian source supports the rest of the claim.
The state used to be involved in distribution of charity from the treasury, known as Bayt al-mal, before it became a largely individual pursuit. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, distributed zakat as one of the first examples of a guaranteed minimum income, with each man, woman and child getting 10 to 20 dirhams annually. [8]:
Y - Doesn't explicitly call it "Bayt al-mal", but given there's a wikilink that confirms this definition I'm ok with it. I would of course prefer a citation that mentions that, but I don't think WP:GACR 2b would require it.
Beards are often encouraged among men as something natural[417][418][better source needed] and body modifications, such as permanent tattoos, are usually forbidden as violating the creation. [9], [10], [11]:
? - This is overall pretty good IMO, the only issue (already marked with {{Bcn}}) is that the "something natural" claim is based in part on a claim made by the Taliban. The Guardian reference is pretty good, with the only issue being that it uses a historical lens; "The association between beards and Islam goes right back to Muhammad himself... For men, the beard was said to be a part of the 'fitrah' - the natural order." Not a huge issue, but a source that explains this from a modern perspective (ideally not the Taliban) would be best. I think even just removing the Taliban article and rewording the claim to "Beards are often encouraged among men" (removing "as something natural") would do great, as the Guardian piece is pretty clear on that.
Here, Muhammad is depicted in the eighth circle of hell, along with Ali. Dante does not blame Islam as a whole but accuses Muhammad of schism, by establishing another religion after Christianity. [Stone, G. 2006. Dante's Pluralism and the Islamic Philosophy of Religion. Springer Publishing. p. 132.]:
? - This is not supported on p. 132 of the source, but pages 53 & 54 seem to contain support for the claims made. Page number should be changed for this footnote.

Done. Sodicadl (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I've completed prose and source reviews, and it appears that some good progress has been made by the nominator with respect to the prose. The source review uncovered a few problems in the 19 footnotes checked, many of which were relatively minor and would require only small tweaks (worth keeping in mind, I selected some of the most "likely-to-be-challenged" claims to check). However, given the ~470 footnotes in the article, one must question the extent of these footnote errors. I think at this point the best step forward is to seek a second opinion from an experienced GA reviewer (this would be relatively uninvolved, not requiring any additional reviewing of the article itself). I'd encourage any editor(s) who plan to provide this opinion to read through the assessments of all of the footnotes above, as the ones marked with question marks range widely in severity. I am personally leaning towards promoting the article to GA given that most of the discrepancies are small and don't demonstrate bad-faith attempts to twist the sources' words, but I would like to hear what other editors think. Besides sourcing, I think this article meets all of the criteria; the article takes a neutral view of the subject (which was apparently not the case during previous reviews), and the stability is as good as can be expected given the importance of the subject. Earwig doesn't show any copyright issues. AviationFreak💬 18:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take a look at this, as requested, going through the sources. Should be able to do it by tomorrow. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. AviationFreak💬 02:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look through the sources you listed above, as well as 15 more, selected at random. In my opinion, the sourcing is at GA standard, though pretty far from FA standard. 4 of the ones I checked had no page number or chapter listed, so the information had to be hunted. One contained only part of the cited information, while the second part of the sentence was unsupported (but true, I found in other sources). 2 of them were "stretches" from the source, but not OR. None of them were wholly inaccurate or fabricated. 11 of the sources I checked out were fine and generally of high quality - reputable books, reliable journalism, or academic sources. The nominator has been doing good work double-checking the sources you listed. I would recommend that the article pass GA with the understanding that the nominator will continue double-checking sources and making whatever small changes are necessary. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was my takeaway as well; probably ok for GA, but a ways away from FA sourcing-wise. With this second opinion (thank you!), this GA nom passes and is promoted. AviationFreak💬 15:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really great work, but I have few comments

The Scripture: Islam teaches that parts of the previously revealed scriptures, such as the Tawrat (Torah) and the Injil (Gospel), have become distorted—either in interpretation, in text, or both, while the Quran (lit. 'Recitation') is viewed as the final, verbatim and unaltered word of God, you need to add the scholars scepticism about this statement, like Gerd R. Puin, see History of the Quran and Historiography of early Islam

The Criticism section does not actually summaries the Criticism of Islam, and the 1st three sentences are not even criticism, they are more of Medieval Christian views on Muhammad. The section needed to be expanded as I see no mention of Criticism of the Quran, Criticism of Muhammad, Islamic views on slavery and concubines, Apostasy in Islam or freedom of religion in Islam, Islam and violence, not even women as in Islam and domestic violence

This should also be included in the lead as a paragraph. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to write these articles in WP:SUMMARY style and avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight. The criticism section does a good job of avoiding recentism while still acknowledging modern issues, and the {{main}} article is there for anyone who is interested in this aspect. The article is here to provide a summary of the religion as a whole, and an overly long Criticism section would be undue. If you'd like to discuss this further after the GA Nom closes, please feel free to do so on the Talk Page. AviationFreak💬 15:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.