Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy edit

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Peregrine981 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a fairly important topic to be covered correctly, and is at the very least close to FA standard. It is of course a complicated and politically charged topic, so it is more difficult to cover comprehensively than some topics, but I think it does a good job now. It has been through a couple of peer reviews, and a thorough copy editing thanks to the guild of copy editors. There are a few dead links, but they are not retrievable so far as I know (they are protected by bots). Otherwise, it is technically in fine condition. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

Looking mostly at references / reference formatting at the moment. Reference numbers and such based off this version.

  • Many online sources lack retrieval dates.

Done

  • Some sources have more citation information available than is presented in the notes. For example, the source used in Note 32 is by Betina Märcher Dalgas, which is not indicated in the article. I have not taken the time to make a thorough review of all the online sources for missing author credits or publication dates, but that should be done.
Done
  • Dead-link sources are troubling at the FAC level, even if they might not strictly be deal-breakers. Are the Politiken dead links available in hardcopy, or were they online only? Also, more links are dead than indicated. Note 94, for example. I haven't checked them all, but they all need checked.

Done

  • I don't have the time right now to go through and check the live-link status of everything, so I'm leaving this entry here for the time being to remind myself to do that. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple authors are not always formatted the same way. Ref 2 has Last1, First1; First2 Last2. Ref 49 is Last1, First1; Last2, First2. This should be consistent throughout.

Done

  • The italicization of print newspapers publishing online is not consistent. That's most obvious when The New York Times is italicized in Note 54, but not in Note 53. Similar problems affect the Washington Post. This needs to be audited throughout the references. As a related issue, the same sources are sometimes cited in different manners. Times Online versus Times Online (London). BBC versus BBC News. And so forth.

Done

  • I think there's still some inconsistency here. You italicize pravda.ru, for example, but not DR.dk. Perhaps I'm just not understanding the standard being applied here? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've labelled anything that is a newspaper as such, and they italicize. Broadcast organisations are not italicizing. Pravda is a newspaper as far as I know, where as DR is the Danish public broadcaster. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you link publishers (Note 91, 95). Mostly you don't. Again, consistency (without overlinking).

Done

  • Note 12: Missing space after last period and before the language designator.

Done

  • Note 13: This isn't formatted at all.

Done

  • (For ease of tracking, this is the "Profetens ansigt" source): Not done. The reference entry here still doesn't even indicate what this is or where it appeared. Was this is a newspaper; if so, which one? With the section number, I assume so. But you don't say. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is done. Not sure what more info you are looking for. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 38: There's a period after the question mark that appears spurious.

note - this is a result of the template

  • I'm not so picky that I'd oppose solely on this, but you may wish to hit the template talk page or ask around; there are workarounds for at least some of this sort of templating shenanigans. I don't know if that's true here or not. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 39: The website is styled DR.dk here, but dr.dk elsewhere. Not sure which is correct (if either), but this should be consistent.

Done

  • Mostly fixed, but I'd overlooked Note 35, which is basically a bare URL, and needs formatting (and is still styled dr.dk). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

  • Note 97/98: Why are you referencing a machine translation? Why aren't you giving the source language for the original document?

removed

  • You've removed the separate citation to Google Translate, but you're still citing the Ekstra Bladet article; that's fine, but it still needs a language noted, as it isn't in English. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]

...and I'm stopping here. I've probably overlooked problems along the way, but the referencing problems are so pervasive at this point that I'm actually going to have to oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed comments. I will try to address all problems with formatting over the coming days. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get another batch up sometime this weekend, ideally including some examination of the actual prose, since I'm sure you're about sick of fixing technical template issues. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to look at the article content:

  • Eh, okay, one more reference formatting quibble in here: the actual References section is almost, but not quite, in alphabetical order. The Modood source seems to have wandered down a couple places.

Done

  • There's some overlinking (duplicate location). Arabic language (in Response to protests and reprintings), Flemming Rose (Later developments), Roj TV (Danish journalistic tradition).

Done

comment: The problem with this is that the "spin-off" articles aren't very good, and don't have a 1:1 relationship with the sections on the main page. So the extra info links will necessarily have to be a bit redundant for the moment. I have already tried to put a bit of order into them, and have merged a couple into the main article. But it is a whole other level of work to put real order into them. For the moment, I don't see any way around the current redirects.Peregrine981 (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what to think about the Comparable incidents section, but I don't think a bullet-point list makes for compelling prose. Also, the list isn't in any sort of discernible order.
  • I'm not certain this is comprehensive. Blasphemy Day and the censorship of Cartoon Wars Part II were direct responses to the controversy; the former is relegated to a See Also link, and the latter not mentioned at all. There's no mention of the Iranian government-sponsored anti-Holocaust cartoon contest launched as a reaction. And so forth.
comment: Considering the length of the article, I'm not sure we need much on Blasphemy Day, as it is only tangentially related to the actual incident. Cartoon Wars is maybe worth a brief mention, but again considering the length of the article, not sure we can mention all of the artistic works that have commented on the incident. The holocaust cartoon contest is mentioned in the "Jyllands-Posten" section. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I think the sourcing critically under-represents scholarly analysis of the situation. I haven't taken the time to go through the journal articles in detail to determine what they can each specifically offer, but a few (and there are many more) of the scholarly sources considering this topic, but not cited, are:

    • Berkowitz, Dan; Eko, Lyombe (2007). "Blashphemy as Sacred Rite/Right: "The Mohammed cartoons affair" and maintenance of journalistic ideology". Journalism Studies. 8 (5): 779–797. doi:10.1080/14616700701504757.
    • Hansen, Lene (2011). "Theorizing the image for Security Studies: Visual securitization and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis". European Journal of International Relations. 17 (1): 51–74. doi:10.1177/1354066110388593.
    • Lægaard, Sune (2007). "The Cartoon Controversy: Offence, Identity, Oppression?". Political Studies. 55 (3): 481–498. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00685.x.
    • Müller, Marion G.; Özcan, Esra (2007). "The Political Iconography of Muhammad Cartoons: Understanding Cultural Conflict and Political Action". PS: Political Science and Politics. 40 (2): 287–291. doi:10.1017/S104909650707045X.
    • Müller, Marion G.; Özcan, Esra; Seizov, Ognyan (2009). "Dangerous Depictions: A Visual Case Study of Contemporary Cartoon Controversies". Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media and Culture. 7 (1): 28–39. doi:10.1080/15405700802598361.
    • Olesen, Thomas (2007). "The Porous Public and the Transnational Dialectic: The Muhammed Cartoons Conflict". Acta Sociologica. 50 (3): 295–308. doi:10.1177/0001699307080935.

Going to have to continue to oppose at this time (1b/1c/2b). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for your patience thus far. I appreciate very much the helpful comments. I am trying to take them into account as best I can, given the time available. I've taken care, I think, of most of the more technical problems, and will focus on the more substantive issues you an Sp33dyphil have pointed out in the coming days. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sp33dyphil edit

Comment This a long article. I've only got some points for now.

  • The "Timeline" portion has around 3,500 words, while the "Background, opinions and issues" has more than 3,400. Yet in the lead three of the four paragraphs are about the events of the controversy, with only one paragraph dedicated to the background of the event. I suggest you mention, in the lead, the condemnation of aniconism in Islam (something Christianity does not prohibit). This might explain the level of anger the Muslims have displayed, since not only did Jyllands-Posten make drawings of Muhammad, it portrayed him in an unfavourable light.

Done

  • I appreciate the lengths you have gone to present as much background information of the controversy as possible. There is so much information that it can be argued that criterion of 4 of the FA criteria is being challenged. For example, I find the mention of the PKK and pornography under "Danish journalistic tradition" superfluous.

Done, although I left a shorter reference to the occasional complaints of foreign governments. I think they are relevant to mention at least. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • An Islamic state is a country ruled by the sharia. A Muslim country has a Muslim-majority population. It is more correct to say "Muslim countries" because many of the "Islamic countries" you are talking about do not implement the sharia.

Done

  • "Islamist" is a neologism that has come to refer to person who advocates for the integration of Islam with the social and political spheres (establishing an Islamic state via the Sharia). These are simply an extension of the Islamic faith, and so there is no such thing as Islamism -- it is just a meaningless word. Anyway, let's say that Islamist is not neologism -- I believe it would be more correct to refer to "Islamist" in the article as "Muslims", because nowhere does it talk about Muslims calling for the establishment of an Islamic state.

Comment: Islamist/islamism seem to be quite widely used in the relevant articles cited. Major news publications, such as the NYT do use the term. As such, I don't really see a problem with using the term in this article, to mean essentially people who believe that Islam should be the most important guiding principle in politics, as per the wikipedia article on the subject - Islamism. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not correctly used. All Muslims by definition must call for Sharia as the law of the land. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions
Not true at all. Many Muslims do not call for sharia. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "'s 17 October 2005" italicised?

Done

Thanks for the thoughts. I've taken care of some of this already, and will work through the rest as soon as possible. Peregrine981 (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Pig-squealing caption is missing closing quote mark
  • Check grammar of banner caption - this isn't still "being" posted
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Allah-green.svg is tagged as lacking author info, and what artwork was it copied from?
  • File:Supportdenmark1.jpg: source link is dead and uploader wasn't author - check licensing
  • File:Pig_person.jpg: PDF link is dead, and an expanded FUR (particularly purpose of use) would go a long way towards demonstrating a need for the use of the non-free image - I get it, but we should have more. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/archive3&oldid=724073175"