Talk:Muhammad's eclipse

Muhammad's eclipse was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 15, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Related eclipses

The recently added section "Related Eclipses" is not necessary.

This eclipse is notable because of its association with the Islamic prophet Muhammad; the other 'related' solar eclipses have no relation with Muhammad.

I propose to delete this section. AstroLynx (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, AstroLynx. I added the ‘Related eclipses’ section to bring the page in line with the other solar eclipse pages on Wikipedia. As far as the strong association with Islam goes, the page has been moved to Muhammad’s eclipse for the same reason and to bring it in line with pages such as that of the Assyrian eclipse. To further clarify, while this eclipse has an extremely strong relationship with Islam, it is still an astronomical event in being an eclipse, and, as such, there is still reason for the ‘Related eclipses’ section to be maintained. Thanks again. —AccordingClass (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the added section on 'Related eclipses' I disagree, similar articles such as the Assyrian eclipse, Mursili's eclipse, the Eclipse of Thales, etc., have no such section. It is OR and unsourced and it adds nothing to the article, therefore it should be deleted. AstroLynx (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the section on 'related eclipses' as these eclipses have nothing to do with Muhammad and similar pages on historical eclipses do not have such sections. AstroLynx (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Muhammad's eclipse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AccordingClass (talk · contribs) 08:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 20:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over this article, and it still needs significant work to meet the good article criteria.

The article fails criterion 1b because it does not comply with the guidance at MOS:LEAD. The only purpose the lead should serve is to summarize the rest of the article.
The article fails criterion 2b as many claims are unreferenced, including critical ones like the date and many of the statistics.
The article likely fails criterion 3a, as there is little information in the article and there appear to be other sources about this subject. I suggest looking at the sources that turn up in Google Scholar or using the Wikipedia Library to find other high quality sources.
The article fails criterion 3b, as much of the article is not about Muhammad's eclipse. The article does not need an explanation of what a solar eclipse is, nor does it need a list of other solar eclipses that are not the subject of the article.
One other note, it may need clarification about where the information on this eclipse is coming from. The article says the only information is from Islamic sources, but NASA has information on it.

I have not done a close reading of the prose or checked individual references, so I cannot say whether these meet the criteria. If you'd like further assistance to improve the article, you can put in a request at peer review, or you can ask more specific questions at the teahouse. Thank you for the work you've done so far! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]