Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid

[edit]
(
)

5x expanded by Mhhossein (talk) and Mehdi ghaed (talk). Nominated by Mhhossein (talk) at 16:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC).

  • Suggesting two alternate hooks since this one contains many very technical terms: 184.147.121.46 (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that Shaykh al-Mufid, the 11th century Shia jurist and theologian, received his nickname "the Instructor" after besting another scholar in a logic argument?
ALT2 ... that Shaykh al-Mufid, the 11th century Shia jurist and theologian, thought that prophets are an absolute necessity for humankind?
  • I think the former suggestion is far more interesting. So I suggest another hook which has less technical terms:
ALT3 ...that Shaykh al-Mufid, the 11th century Shia jurist and theologian was received two signed letters by Muhammad al-Mahdi, the twelfth Imam of Shia, during major occultation? Mhhossein (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

General eligibility:

  • New enough: No - Revision as of 14:35, 23 December 2015 is ~1,750 characters. Revision as of the time of this review is ~8,000 characters, which is about a 4.5-fold expansion. I used Javascript kit which includes inline citations in the count, so isn't extremely accurate, but it's reliable enough to flag up a 750 word gap. On the other hand, sometime between 18 December and 23 December (prior to nominator's major edits) the article was at 1,300 characters, which would require a 6,500 character article and is therefore okay. I would say the article is eligible on these grounds.
  • Long enough: Yes

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - 2nd paragraph of Early life and education not cited. "eloquent and skillful at dialectic (jadal)" has no inline citation.
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: No - The following phrases were copied from http://www.al-islam.org/: "Sheikh Mufid died on the eve of Friday, 3rd of Ramadhan, 413 A.H. "; "Al-Mufid remained buried in his own house for two years, and then his body was transferred to..." and " was born on 11th Dhul Qa'dah, 336 Hijra (or 338 A.H. according to Sheikh Tusi) in Ukbara".

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - The claim that he is a jurist is not cited. It's hard to tell if he was "11th cenutury" as all cited dates in the article do not use this format. It would appear he overlapped the 10th and 11th century if the article is to be believed. Converting from the format used in the article may be common knowledge, so I'm not concern about that, but it is hard to accept it AGF when the article says he was born in the 10th century. ALT1 is not backed up by the article; indeed the article says this name may have been given to someone else... ALT2 seems to be slight original research, as there is no mention of this relating to "humankind". It also needs inline citations at the end of the sentence containing the quote.
  • Interesting: No - Original and ALT3 are not interesting to me. They seem to cram too much into one sentence leaving me unable to take anything of interest away from it. ALT1 and ALT2 are both interesting. I have striked them.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Jolly Ω Janner 23:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jolly Janner: As you see, the expansion began after this edit after which I started adding more information to the article. The article was then nominated within the legal time on 30 December. So, there's no problem with newness. I think you did not check the sources well because "Jurist" is repeated in most of the sources and I can simply show you at your request. By the way, I object your dismissing the original hook and ALT3. We can fix it instead of striking it. Just a two line paragraph did not have citation and Jolly has concluded that adequate sourcing is not done!!! There's absolutely no policy based criteria to fail this nomination, as you did. All what you said can simply be fixed. Mhhossein (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Requesting another reviewer: Thanks to Jolly, but I think he has missed lots of points and I'm requesting another review. Mhhossein (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That's fine and I will tag it as needing a review. Note that my assessment was not to fail the nomination, but to fix it. Failure is marked by an icon of an orange cross. Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 06:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Note to Mhhossein: the proper thing to do when there are issues with a hook is to strike it; it can then be rewritten as an ALT hook. That way, comments about the original hooks can still be understood, as well as the changes in wording between the revised and original versions. Hooks should generally not be fixed in place. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: Are reviewers allowed to strike every hook they decide? What if there disputes over the issues? Mhhossein (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Mhhossein, part of the reviewer's job is to check all of the hooks against the article and its sources (it must be supported by both), plus the other criteria (such as neutrality) and strike those that have problems. A struck hook could conceivably be unstruck later if circumstances warrant, such as supplying new sourcing or the reviewer realizing that he or she missed or misread that section of the article or the cited source. If there is a dispute, then either the reviewer prevails or additional opinions are requested and the review proceeds from there. A hook must be approved by some reviewer for it to be used. I have to tell you that I absolutely agree with Jollly Janner that the original hook and its revision, ALT3, are completely impenetrable to me, and thus not interesting: whether Tawquee or signed letter, the import does not register with me, nor why a major occultation would (or would not) matter. I have reinstated their struck status. ALT1 and ALT2, on the other hand, both convey something of general interest. If you don't like either of them, you are free to come up with additional ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: I don't see any sourcing problem with the hook, do you? If the main problem with the stroke hooks is that they are not interesting enough, please check "Major Occultation" and note that it is a belief by Shia which simply is about the twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, being absent and hidden for an unknown period. Meanwhile, some people with high spiritual status could make contact with him occasionally throughout the history, an act which is desired much passionately by Shia muslims and is disclosed to have happened just few times. You probably mean that the hook is not interesting to other people who don't know these things or don't care about them. Anyway, if you think it is not interesting, I can propose some other ALTs because I don't deem them suitable. Mhhossein (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Mhhossein, thanks for explaining. The DYK criterion is The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience. It's the "interesting to a broad audience" part that I think is the problem here; they should be interesting to people who don't know about Shia Islam, not just to those who are Shia. I'm happy for you to propose some other ALTs that meet this criterion, since you don't like ALT1 or ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset: You're welcome! Yeah, the hook has to be interesting to a broad audience. For this purpose, I suggest the following hook which I think is interesting to a broad audience and the date is modified per Jolly's explanation:
  • Mhhossein, I like the idea behind ALT4, which is both in the article and the source, but using "quipped" in that way doesn't work well. I'd like to propose the following variant, which I think flows better:
  • I can confirm that ALT4a is of suitable length, interest and valid. Shi'ite Identities (p.59) confirmed he was a "jurispreudent", so I'm gonna guess that's the same as a jurist. Jolly Ω Janner 08:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes "jurisprudent" is almost the same as "jurist". Mhhossein (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Jolly: I added the citation by the way. Mhhossein (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset: Should we wait for a new reviewer to verify the recently suggested hook? Mhhossein (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm just checking in to see where this nomination is up to. In my initial review, I found work needed to be done in overall referencing, close paraphrasing and the hooks. Considering you have done work to improve the referencing and I've approved BlueMoonset's hook, it might be best to work on the close paraphrasing (if you haven't done so already). In my experience, you may be waiting for a long time for another reviewer. As this is very close to being promoted, I'm wondering whether you still want another reviewer, Mhhossein? Jolly Ω Janner 06:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Jolly: Thanks for reconsidering the work. I made some edits to fix the mentioned paraphrasing problems. Mhhossein (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am more than okay with wavering the concerns over the newness (assuming it was a legitimate concern in the first place). The paragraphs now all contain at least one citation and the hook proposed by BlueMoonset has been backed up. The close paraphrasing is enough to keep Wikipedia out of plagiarism trouble. My final comment for improvement (not necessary for promotion) would be to convert some of the dates in the text to the Gregorian calendar, which is used by Wikipedia. Jolly Ω Janner 03:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Al-Shaykh_Al-Mufid&oldid=878363091"