- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Al-Mujadila edit
- ... that the 58th chapter of the Quran, titled "She Who Disputes", overruled Muhammad on the legal status of a woman's divorce? Source: El-Shaikh p.29
- Reviewed: Brasheedah Elohim
5x expanded by HaEr48 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC).
5 times expanded, cited hook, use of fair image, no problem with text but QPQ not done. RRD দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment This has potential, but I'm not sure I quite understand the hook. You're saying that the chapter overruled Muhammad - is that right? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Dweller: A Muslim would say something like God overruled Muhammad by revealing the chapter, but saying God did X based on one religion's scripture would violate WP:NPOV. So I tried to make it more neutral by saying it's the chapter (i.e. the text) which overruled Muhammad, regardless of whose words it is. What do you think? Suggestions welcome. HaEr48 (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- That is a tough one! How about "... the 58th chapter of the Quran, explains how Muhammad's original position on the legal status of divorced women was overruled?" --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the hook suggested by Dweller ("... the 58th chapter of the Quran, explains how Muhammad's original position on the legal status of divorced women was overruled?"). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: please read Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide. If you are approving a hook, you need to state that it meets the five main DYK criteria before adding the green tick. Yoninah (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- The article has been five times expanded, the hook is indeed cited, the article itself is within policy, and QPQ has indeed been done. Worth promoting. As previously stated above, I have preference to the hook suggested by Dweller. @Yoninah: --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
