Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Balkhi-Rumi

Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi

Would love to have this article upgraded. Any comments will be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article! I know next to nothing on this subject, so there were many things that looked like it was just assumed were common knowledge so I marked them as needing citations, especially when opinions were being given, as you want to make sure you cite a secondary source that gives that opinion and not that it's yours.

"It is considered by many to be one of the greatest works of mystical poetry" Could be flagged by someone as both WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK.
"Shams is believed to have been murdered by disciples of Rumi who were jealous of his relationship with Shams (also spelt Shems)." earlier it's stated that it might have been Rumi's son?

I noticed too other potential WEASEL and PEACOCK terms, but I'm new at this so perhaps you should have more experienced editor take a look too. plange 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a lot of that... I will attempt and work to gather sources and tone down the hagiography . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds cool! Sorry, also forgot to note that you should probably switch to using {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates for the references. They will ensure you have things in the right places, and with the web citations you should have the date you accessed too (which is a parameter in the cite web template). I had a hard time finding Aflaki (when I came across this "As Aflaki relates") because his name wasn't first. Also, you should also cite page numbers for each reference. When citing from a number of different pages, I generally prefer to put the full reference in the "References" section listing the full details of the book and only using short-form citations in the Notes section (as here, for example). plange 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Plange... that is my modus operandi, although I find the {{cite book}}, a bit demanding. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do too, that's why I like doing the short form of just "Last Name, title, page num" in my refs (so that I don't have to keep using the cite book thing) and then just do that in the references section....plange 00:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow

Copying statements from the article talk page: I saw this article has been listed as a GA for a while without a review. This is close to a good article but not quite there yet. Some things you could do:

Per WP:GTL, "see also" section is not in the right spot, and should not include external links
It's not ideal to mix footnotes and inline links, the numbers overlap and can be confusing.
All full dates (D-M-Y) should be wikilinked so date prefs work.
It could use some WP:NPOV balancing in places, and some mention of criticism would be nice.
Three of the images are "fair use" but seem more like ornamentation to the text.
There are many ^{[citation needed]} tags scattered through the text; some of those statements really do need a citation.
If you have a legacy section, the modern import of Rumi should probably be located there, and not also in teachings.
There are some technical words that would seem to appear out of nowhere; what is a "ghazal" if someone didn't know ahead of time?

Just a few ideas. This is certainly an important historical figure and he deserves a good article with the reference material at your disposal. Gimmetrow 03:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the useful feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, is this article supposed to be a GA nomination? Reason I ask is that the user making the nom did not seem to have any history editing the article. (Saw only one edit, marked "rvt".) Anyway, article is pretty good but still has pieces of hagiography. I puzzled over the wikilinking of "transcends". Gimmetrow 21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a lot of work. I will be working on it starting tomorrow. It may take a few good weeks of research and copyedit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So would you concur in a simple delisting of the GA nomination, without a fail template? Gimmetrow 21:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting is a good idea. Let's relist when we are ready. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]