Wikipedia:Peer review/Mosque/archive1

Mosque

This article documents a seemingly simple topic and thus seems like it could be on its way to Featured Article status. I recently made major changes to the article and so I would like to know how it can be improved. joturner 23:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't be so optimistic about its prospects of becoming an FA in the short term. But, here's what I notice on first glance.

Firstly compare to <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9053913>.
Referencing - this article has no footnote system or referencing system. It also appears that most sources aren't exactly the most reliable. Not that there is too much scholarly work on mosques in themselves... but, it could be better.
Britannica references types of mosques: masjid jami (large collective mosques) and normal mosques. An interesting and important thing.
Mentioning of the "maqsurah"
diacritics. Imam -> Imām to make this more professional.
Mosque schools <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9050246> and the roles mosques have in education.
Pictures, we need the most notable and the best examples. During the salah section a picture of prayer... maybe pictures of wudu rooms.

I do think it's almost as good as the Britannica article (with some prose cleanup) but to be an FA it should be better. So that should maybe include.

Types of mosques. We have the grand mosques of Cairo, etc. and then the rowshouses of Eastham... I think something on that would be nice but not necessary.
"Men and women in the mosque" needs to be expanded a lot with reliable sources.

Preliminary comments. Do they sound along the right lines? gren グレン 23:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There may be quite a bit of redundancy here, as gren hit submit before I could. ;) A few comments. I think what you have is well-written. However, your main problem is that this article isn't very complete and comprehensive. Below are a few suggestions on how to flesh out your article. Best of luck when you bring this article to its featured article candidacy!

References. When scanning through the article, this is likely the very first thing FAC reviewers will look at. This is not to say that you need to reference every fact in the article - that is, of course, ludicrous. However, you need to, for example, cite where you found out which mosque was the "first mosque in the world." It's easiest to do this mostly through inline citations; check other featured articles for an example. If you need any help, don't hesitate to drop me a note on my talk page.
"Men and women in the mosque". This is such a small section. Is there anything you can do to expand on it? If not, perhaps it would be best to merge it within another section.
"Types of mosque". You give an excellent introduction outlining the various types of mosques around the world. It would be nice if you could expand on this, however. What is a "T-type mosque?" What is a "central dome" mosque? Again, we need more content and context for things like this. -Rebelguys2 23:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your reviews are very helpful. I didn't actually expect the article from a terrible article to featured article status in one day. I must point out gren, however, that those Britannica articles require a username and password, which I assume cost money. joturner 00:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I have access through my university. Not sure how to get you access. I only linked for those with acccess. I am not sure how to get you access. gren グレン 01:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]