Talk:Al-Nasir Muhammad Mosque

Is this really a stub? The article would benefit from a picture, as many articles would, but it seems to be perfectly adequate textually. Agentsoo 17:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess you are right. — mark ✎ 17:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed it. — mark ✎ 10:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that Enclopaedia Britannica's article with the title Qala'un Mosque is completely misleading as pointed out here. — mark ✎ 10:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Just one correction, the Qala'un Mosque mentioned in Wikipedia, which is officially termed the Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad ibn Qala'un Mosque, is not the one adjacent to the Qala'un Complex. In fact, the Qala'un Mosque (Mosque of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad) is located in the Cairo Citadel, and the Qala'un Complex is close to Khan el-Khalili within the city. But there is one more mosque of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad, officially termed the Madrasah and Tomb of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad, which is adjacent to the Qala'un Complex. It was initiated by Kitbugha in 1295 and completed by al-Nasir Muhammad in 1304. --Chapultepec (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Delisted GA because

This article can use a lot more work. It needs more thoroughness, such as the exact use of the mosque (besides just praying). It is not well-written and needs much more copyediting; just compare this with any other Wikipedia:Good articles. Surely pictures can be included. The entire article is just a description of the mosque; it needs to be better written then that. AndyZ 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There was I thinking that articles should be 'just descriptions', but apparently I was wrong. Not being a native speaker, I can't really judge the quality of the English, but I hope someone will come along to do a good copyedit. — mark ✎ 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Nasir Muhammad Mosque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050521082611/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=3982 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=3982
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714032140/http://www.maqrizi.com/mosque_pages/m_of_the_citadel.html to http://www.maqrizi.com/mosque_pages/m_of_the_citadel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Points for revision

• I've just grouped some sections together in a more logical division (description vs history). The "structure" and "visual aspects" sections seem to overlap in terms of theme and information, and should probably be merged in the future.
• The "mosque today" section is currently unsourced, but it was once sourced; perhaps this can be rescued. That being said, however, the information seems misleading or subjective (even if it came from that source). e.g.: I have been to this mosque recently and other times before, and it is as frequently visited as the rest of the Citadel (which is a major sight). It's also not quite right to say that it looked essentially as it did in the 1300s: the marble paneling inside the mosque was removed long ago and only restored in one small section; maybe more nuance is needed here to describe the state of its preservation and the outcome of previous restoration efforts.

These are some initial observations; please discuss or add more. (If I have time, I will try to make some revisions myself in the future, if no one else does first.) Cheers. Casual Builder (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)