Wikipedia:Peer review/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive2

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is now relatively complete, but would like some input if certain aspects are clearly over-emphasised or under-emphasised. Also, if there is anything clearly missing from the point of view of someone fresh to the page. Obviously any other commentary would be welcome.

Thanks, Peregrine981 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to do this review. Can the nominator reply and indicate that they are still interested in going forward? --Noleander (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

.... also: is the intention to try to get the article to WP:FA status? Or simply to get a review for overall quality? --Noleander (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I am still interested, thank you for your offer. I am ultimately interested in going for FA status, although this review request was in part to determine how far it is from FA status. I've never been involved in the process before, so I'm not exactly sure where it stands at the moment. If you're willing to do a detailed review in aid of that goal, I'd be willing to put in the effort to bring it up to standard. My main concern is that there is a great deal of commentary on this issue out there, and I'm not sure how best to go about fairly representing it in the article. At the moment it cites specific authors, primarily as examples of the general arguments that have been made about the issue. I have gone through the article to try to eliminate the instances of blatant POV and incorrect reporting of facts that was quite rampant for several years (for example with regard to the content of the "dossier"). Anyway, I'm committed to improving the article, so would appreciate whatever level of comment you're willing to provide. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Allright. I'm pretty busy in real life, but I should be able to get to it within a few days. --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a look at these over the next few days and get back to you. Thanks for your effort. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Footnotes in Lead - FNs in lead are optional. All facts in the lead must be repeated in the body, and they must be cited in the body anyway. Personally, I think they should not be shown in the lead, since it makes the lead ugly. The presence of FNs in lead raises the suspicion that the lead contains facts not in the body. Question: Is there any footnote/citation in the lead that is _not_ also used in the body? If not, why not, since all lead material should be in the body.

 Done - except one note explaining the name.

Description

• This section seems out of place: isolated, small. Suggest move it into the Timeline section, within the Publication section.

 Done

Debate

• Sequence: "while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute .." - that is in a quote. The next paragraph is "In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted ..." That latter paragraph should be given to the reader before the quote about it.

 Done

• Citation needed: "The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. "

 Done - section largely reworked, hopefully making it more logical.

Publication

• Missing info: "On 30 September 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post") published an article entitled "Muhammeds ansigt"[11] ("The face of Muhammad"). ..." - This is out of the blue. Who assembled the 12 artists? When did they start collecting the 12? What was their motivation? Did the artists express any worries before the publication?

 Done

• Rearrange: "After the invitation from Jyllands-Posten to about forty different .." - Okay, so here is some background: that should be up above the "30 Sept" paragraph. However, the other details still remain: When did the editor invite the 40 artists, etc?

 Done

• Continuity: "On 19 February, Rose explained his intent further ..." - this follows the prior paragra about Rose, but there is a paragraph between; the two Rose paragrs should be adjacent.

 Done

• Year? - "On 19 February, Rose explained his" - what year?

 Done - well, I've changed it to say "later" since I don't think it is particularly important to state the precise date of the interview.

• Clarify: "the Danish daily Politiken polled thirty-one of the forty-three .." - why did they only ask 31 of the 43? or did they ask all 43 but only 31 replied?

comment - moved to previous section where I think it better belongs, even if it is not in strict chronological order. Article is not online, so hard to verify information for the moment. Will have to come back to it.

Diplomatic

• Immediate responses: "Having received petitions from Danish imams, eleven ambassadors from Muslim-majority countries asked for a meeting ..." - This is over 2 weeks after the publication. What responses where there (non diplomatic) before then? Did Danish people write letters to the editor? Did Muslim leaders around the world make comments? Need details on the non-diplomatic responses between 30 Sept and 19 Oct (probably in a new section).

 Done

• Confusing wording: "The ambassadors maintained that they had never asked for Jyllands-Posten to be prosecuted; possibly, the non-technical phrase of the letter, "to take NN to task under law", meant something like "to hold NN responsible within the limits of the law"." - Not sure what that is saying. The "possibly ... meant" is a subjective guess: who is making that guess? The WP editor? Or one of the parties? clarify.

 Done

• Who? - "The Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aboul Gheit, wrote several letters to the Prime Minister of Denmark and to the United Nations Secretary-General explaining that they did not ..." - who is "they"?

 Done

• Huh? - "The refusal to meet the ambassadors has been criticized by the ..." - There is no prior mention of a refusal to meet ... even if there was, it is too far away and needs to be restated.

 Done

Judicial investigation

• Detail: "On 27 October 2005, a number of Muslim organizations..." - which organizations?

Commment - it was the loose coalition of muslim organizations that organized in early october. Not sure of the exact complainants. Not sure if that is necessary?

• Detail? "The most recent case was in 1971 when a program director of Danmarks Radio was charged, but found not guilty..." - what was the nature of that case? Islam-related?

 Done

• Continuity: "On 6 January 2006, the Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg discontinued the investigation a .." - Was an investigation started? When? Details? Was it an in-depth investigation? Or maybe it never really went anywhere?

 Done

• Wording: "His reason is based on his finding that the article concerns ..." - Too wordy. Just write "The prosecutor terminated the investigation because the article ..."

 Done

• Clarify: "...his finding that the article.." - what article? The cartoons? Or the article accompanying the cartoons?

 Done

• Variety: "He stated that the right to fre ..." - 2 consecutive sentences begin the same way: need to vary.

 Done

Tour

• Wording: "They created a dossier ..." - many readers won't know what a dossier is (I'm not even sure). Can a better equivalent word be found? I think "collection of .documents" would be better for readers.

Comment: Dossier is the accepted term. This may be a varieties of English issue, but to me it is a completely normal word.

• Huh? - "They created a dossier (known as the Akkari-Laban dossier (Arabic: ملف عكّاري لبن‎) containing a forty-three-page document entitled " .." - I thought a dossier was a document: how can it include a document (which is named "Dossier ...")? Or is it a folder of documents: if so: what additional documents did it include besides the 43 page item? I suggest the following: "The created a collection of documents called "Dossier ..." which included the following five items: ...."

 Done

• Numbered list: "and the following: ..." - That list should contain a 5th item: the "several letters from " It is confusing to have the "letters" in prose, before the numbered list.

 Done

• acronym: "(in response to the JP controversy)" - avoid acronyms. Spell out JP here.

 Done

• Detail: " l to Muslims who were participating in an online debate on Jyllands-Posten .." - sounds like an important debate? When? where? who?
• Wording: "...r was handed around on the sidelines." - word "sidelines" is a bit slangy. Maybe just remove it, and say that the collection of documents was circulated.

 Done

• Wording: " an official communiqué was issued seeking for the United Nations .." - better is " an official communiqué was issued requesting the United Nations"

 Done

Protests

• Detail: "... were held around the world in..." - Need a list of countries. Could be "...around the world, including A, B, C, ...."

comment: this is a bit of a tricky issue to deal with. the protests were so wide spread that the list will become quite long. Nonetheless I have begun gathering the information. If necessary it can later be moved to a sub-article.

• Detail: " the Danish and Austrian embassies in.." - Why Austria?

comment:it was in the same building

• continuity: Two items are separated: " Several death threats and reward offers for killing those responsible ..." and " Haji Yaqoob Qureishi, a minister in the Uttar Pradesh state government, announced a cash reward for anyone who beheaded " - those two should be adjacent.

comment: Disagree. It follows on the information about government officials more than about killings.

• Why: "Several ministers in various countries resigned or were suspended amidst the controversy, .." - why did they resign? Where the supporters or opponents of the cartoons? Were they afraid for their lives? Were they fired? or quit voluntarily?

 Done - added info, although I think we can't get into too much detail here. If people are really interested in the details they can follow the links.

Boycott

• Against who? - "A consumer boycott was organised i ..." - should mention "against Denmark" in that first sentence.

 Done

• Punctuation: ".... all Muslims to boycott, not only Denmark but also Norway, France, ..." - commas are misplaced.

 Done

Response

• So what? - "The second letter, dated 30 January 2006, had a Danish version,[63] dated 21:31 Danish time, an Arabic version, and an English[64] version dated 21:44: ..." - I cannot grasp the significance of the times ... either remove or explain the importance.

 Done

Later

• use template: "For a detailed account of later developments please see: Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" - wording is too conversational; just the {{seealso}} template.

 Done

• Ambiguous: "On New Year's Day 2010 police had to shoot a would be assassin in his home." - In the assasin's own home?

 Done

Journalistic T

• Need context: "A complaint was filed against the newspaper under this section of the law,..." - what newspaper? Sudden shift from historical background to the JP cartoons needs more words.

 Done

• Wording: "and three cartoons were in fact later reprinted in Jyllands-Posten..." - remove "in fact"

 Done

• Clarify: " It frequently tried to report on activities of imams it considered radical..." - Why is the word "tried" there? Did they fail to publish the reports?

 Done

Islamic T

• Define term: "Owing to the traditions of aniconism in Islam,..." - First sentence in this section must define the term aniconism

 Done

• When? - "OIC's Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated in a press release: "" - year/month?

 Done

• Long quote: ""Why is the insult so deeply felt by some Muslims? .... " is a very long quote. Not clear why quote is there: better is to paraphrase in WP's voice.

 Done

Political

• Nation? - "Christopher Hitchens argued that official reaction in the West, particularly the United States was too lenient toward the protesters and Muslim community in Denmark, and insufficiently supportive of Denmark and the right to free speech: "nobody in authority can be found to state the obvious and the necessary—that we stand with the Danes ..." - Hitchens is from UK, true? What "authority" and "we" is he referring to? UK? US? western world?

comment: It is ins't completely clear what he means by "we". I think he means generally governments in the west (outside of DK)... but it isn't completely clear. So, I will leave it as is, since I think this is largely implied by the introductory sentence.

• Wording: "the controversy was used by Islamists jockeying for influence ..." - Word "jockeying" is a bit slangy and some readers may not comprehend the intent. Find a more encyclopedic wording.

 Done

• Source of quote: Paragraph: "Critics of political correctness see the cartoon controversy ..." contains two quotes... the speaker(s) need to be named.

 Done

• Punctuation: "the lamentable laws against "hate speech" in Europe, " - inner quotes within an outer quote should use single quote marks ' ...'

 Done

Comparable

• Need citations: For each work named, need to cite a source that compares the work with the JP controversy.

 Done

References

• Footnotes should be formatted as 2 columns

 Done

• Missing a list of key sources: Certainly there must be five to 20 key sources on this topic, true? Especially books like The Cartoons that Shook the World or the article by Hitchens, or publications by Rose. They should be specifically listed here in a "References" subsection. The reader should not have to comb thru the footnotes to try to find a handful of key sources.

Puasing for now

• That should be enough for now. After you address the above, I can review it again if you want - just post a note on my talk page. --Noleander (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)