Template:Did you know nominations/The Ulama in Contemporary Islam: Custodians of Change
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Launchballer talk 09:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Ulama in Contemporary Islam: Custodians of Change
- ... that The Ulama in Contemporary Islam is the first comparative study on Muslim ulama? Source: Yom, Sean L. (2004). "Review of The Ulama in Contemporary Islam: Custodians of Change". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 31 (2): 265. ISSN 1353-0194.
- Reviewed:
Created by Owais Al Qarni (talk). Self-nominated at 01:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Ulama in Contemporary Islam: Custodians of Change; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Comment: This is an interesting and complex topic. RoySmith often expresses concern about hooks that emphasize "firsts". I took a look at your source, and while it certainly supports the hook, I also took a look at two other reviews of the same book, none of which mention this "first". It might be helpful to consider alternate hooks because hooks that rely on "firsts" can often be problematic. I will await to hear from RoySmith to see if they think this hook is acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. Yeah, we've been burned by "first"s before when it turns out somebody finds an even earlier example, so I think it's a good idea to just avoid them. Sometimes you can work around the issue with "said to be the first" type of language, but finding a better hook is often a better plan. RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- See for instance Khuri, Fuad I. (July 1987). "The Ulama: A Comparative Study of Sunni and Shi'a Religious Officials". Middle Eastern Studies. 23 (3): 291–312. JSTOR 4283186. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Owais Al Qarni: I was about to review this, but noticed that David Eppstein had debunked the hook, so this would need a new one anyway. Can you propose one before I look at the article?--Launchballer 15:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Launchballer:, thank you for considering this article. Upon reviewing the feedback, it's clear that comprehensive copyediting is needed to enhance the quality for DYK. Unfortunately, I'm unable to perform the necessary edits at this time. Therefore, I suggest closing this nomination without further discussion. Thanks again.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Owais Al Qarni: I was about to review this, but noticed that David Eppstein had debunked the hook, so this would need a new one anyway. Can you propose one before I look at the article?--Launchballer 15:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- See for instance Khuri, Fuad I. (July 1987). "The Ulama: A Comparative Study of Sunni and Shi'a Religious Officials". Middle Eastern Studies. 23 (3): 291–312. JSTOR 4283186. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. Yeah, we've been burned by "first"s before when it turns out somebody finds an even earlier example, so I think it's a good idea to just avoid them. Sometimes you can work around the issue with "said to be the first" type of language, but finding a better hook is often a better plan. RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)