Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Badr

Battle of Badr edit

According to the WikiProphet, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to write a good NPOV article on Islam. However, I have tried and rewritten the article from scratch, so any errors in it are mine and mine alone. It covers a decisive battle fought by Muhammad against his Quraish opponents in 624, which has an extremely important place in Islamic history, roughly equivalent to the Jews' escape from Pharoah in the Torah. The article has had a thorough Peer Review, is listed as a Good Article, and has been copy-edited at least once. I hope you will see fit to support this nomination. If not I would very much appreciate detailed responses so I can keep improving this page. Palm_Dogg 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pre-emptive strike: There are two complaints that I will address before they are made. First, the maps: I need new ones: though I received permission to use the ones displayed, I was not granted a GDFL license. This is not my forte, so anyone who is willing and able should contact me. ~~Second, Amr ibn Hisham... or is it Hashim? Put simply, I don't know and I've found ample evidence for both spellings.~~ Palm_Dogg 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your nomination comment cracked me up. I've decided you give you a rare honor - you own entry on Raul's laws Raul654 02:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Comment[reply]
  - Thanks, but technically it's the WikiProphet's law, not mine. :) Palm_Dogg 03:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Library of Congress Name Authorities (control number: no2005041288) gives: "Abū Jahl, Amr ibn Hishām" as the preferred form. This suggests that it would be best to say "Abū Jahl, Amr ibn Hishām" for the first entry and either "Abū Jahl" or "Amr ibn Hishām" (as you like) in subsequent entries. They don't have any examples of "Amr ibn Hashim". Pinkville 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WOW! Thank you!. Palm_Dogg 21:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Minor objection~~ - well-written, but a few comments. First, the lead is a tad bit long. Although it's acceptable, it would be great if it could be slightly condensed. In addition, the "Cultural implications" section needs some work, and "The Message" sub-section could also be expanded and made into prose instead of a list. Overall, though, great job! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged "cultural references" section with "implications", slimmed down lead, and rewrote "The Message" as prose. Palm_Dogg 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}09:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work! Gflores ^Talk 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job buddy. --Karimi 05:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]