- 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 SL93 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Askimam
- ... that the Islamic website Askimam is considered more comprehensive and potentially influential than the combined web resources of al-Azhar and its sympathisers? Source: Gary R Bunt, Islam in the Digital Age: E-Jihad, Online Fatwas and Cyber Islamic Environments, p. 173
- Reviewed: Featherdale Wildlife Park
- Comment: This is an interesting hook imo.
Created by TheAafi (talk). Self-nominated at 19:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith - Interesting:
- Other problems:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
The article is long enough (~2,800 chars) and was new enough when nominated, and the tone is suitably neutral and not e.g. overly promotional of the website. The QPQ review looks good. The article's claims are supported by good sources, but I'm concerned about the amount of direct quotation: out of 2,786 characters of readable prose, 1,765 (>63%) consist of direct quotations from the sources. MOS:QUOTE says that overuse of quotations risks copyright infringement and that WP content should generally be written "in Wikipedia editors' own words". I don't see any reason why most or even all of these ideas couldn't be paraphrased and summarized. Likewise, the proposed hook, while interesting (to anyone familiar with al-Azhar, anyway), is essentially a direct quotation of the Bunt source; it would also be better off paraphrased. If this issue is addressed, then the article otherwise appears ready to run. Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that the Islamic website Askimam is considered influential and comprehensive than the web resources of al-Azhar and its sympathisers altogether?
- @Bryanrutherford0: I've rephrased some content on the article and removed direct quotations. There's one major direct quotation and it is necessary in my opinion. Do you want me to fix more? What about ALT1? ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the quick reply! I guess I wasn't clear enough. The content of these quotations is good and should be kept in the article; it just needs to be paraphrased, so that we aren't taking copyrighted text and republishing it under a new license as though we had written it. So, for example, I didn't mean to tell you to remove the names of the people being quoted; attribution is a good thing, and all of those names should go back in to avoid passive-voice weasel words creeping in. So, phrases like "according to Farhana" that were cut should be restored, but the content of the quotations should remain paraphrased. Specifically, rather than the somewhat tendentious "It is considered more influential..." (by whom?), we can say "It has been described as more influential..." in the lead section, and provide the specific attribution in the body.
- @Bryanrutherford0: I've rephrased some content on the article and removed direct quotations. There's one major direct quotation and it is necessary in my opinion. Do you want me to fix more? What about ALT1? ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why do you feel that it's necessary to include the exact wording of Bunt's comments, rather than summarizing them in our words? For example, it could begin, "According to G. R. Bunt, Askimam reflects the point of view of Muslims living as a minority in non-Muslim societies. Questions come from a variety of religious perspectives, and several new fatwas are posted every day. ..." Thus we include in our article the ideas expressed by Bunt, but without plagiarizing his copyrighted text. Direct quotation is appropriate when there's something notable about the specific words used by the speaker, as when the quotation is famous or notorious in its own right; that doesn't appear to be the case here, that I can see.
- ALT1 (and some of the changes made in the article) doesn't work grammatically (we've lost the word "more" somewhere), and for neutrality it needs to say something more like that Askimam "has been called" more influential, rather than that it "is considered" more influential (we haven't established the existence of some broad scholarly consensus on this point, only that one commentator said this one time). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Bryanrutherford0:. Thanks for the comments. I'll have a look again and get back to you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- ALT1a ... that the Islamic website Askimam has been called more comprehensive, influential and wide-ranging than the web resources of al-Azhar and its sympathisers altogether?
- ALT1a is approved as neutral, interesting, and supported by the sources. The quotation concern has been addressed, and the article is now ready for DYK and is hereby approved. Thanks for your responsive editing! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)