Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mosque

Mosque

Self-nomination: I put a significant amount of work into this article in December 2005, but more notably in early April 2006. Now I believe the article is comprehensive, detailing the history, significance, and design of the mosque. There are a great number of references as well a great number of images that supplement the topics discussed throughout the article. joturner 03:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Support I recommended that the article be improved to be featured a month ago. Since then it has improved well. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Support This article is so good it shines. I'll read it more in depth tomorrow, but at first glance it seems up to snuff. Only problem I have is with the use of the picture of the Dome of the Rock. It isn't a mosque, it's a shrine. Find another pic of a gold dome as an example. There are thousands of them. --Jayzel 03:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the image, but this one has a blue dome instead of a gold dome. I don't think you'll object though. joturner 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Very promosing, but I had a few issues... mostly with the intro...
  • Intro is too short for an article of this length, see WP:LEAD. Doesn't really seem to be an overview of what the article covers... just focuses on the meaning of the name and its english usage. Article covers way more than that.
  • Although iwans and minarets are associated closely with mosques, mosques originally lacked these elaborate features. - confusing sentence as it doesn't tell the reader what the potentially unfamiliar words "iwan" and "minaret" means. Minarets are discussed at length but it never exactly explains what they are! I just found this a little annoying.
  • special tarawih prayers are offered another instance of an unfamiliar word being used without really saying what it means without requiring the reader to open a new page
  • The last two paragraphs of "Ramadan events" section seem to be uncited (probably not a huge problem since there aren't any POV claims there). There are some other uncited sections, such as "Social events".
  • Article, at 44k, might be a tad too long. Some of the repetitive descriptions of functions where larger mosques buy food and smaller mosques bring food for potlucks, etc. could perhaps be scrapped or move to subarticles. --W.marsh 04:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As the article (esp. not including references) is actually < 30,000 characters (although on the high end), two paragraphs is sufficient. However, I or someone else could work on expanding that. I tried to clarify the information about iwans and minarets; hopefully you are satisfied with the changes. Tarawih prayers are explained in the same paragraph they're introduced; they're nightly prayers during Ramadan in which the entire Qur'an is recited. I added the word "optional" before tarawih, but it seems to me as though the explanation is sufficient, as there really is nothing more to that. If you want more information, you can always click on the link. Yes, those two paragraphs aren't cited; I tried very hard to find sources for those sections to no avail. But as you said the information isn't controversial and therefore shouldn't be a big problem. And 44kb certainly is a bit large, but take a look at Canadian federal election, 1993 (FA of the day - 2006-04-12) and Antarctica (FA of the day - 2006-04-09). They're 50KB and 43KB, respectively. If you believe there is information that does not need to be included, certainly I'll consider removing it, but if you believe we should delete a bit of information only because the article is a bit large, I don't think that's necessary. I couldn't discern which of the two you were thinking. joturner 04:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your pleasant reply. Yeah I mentioned the stuff about where the article goes into who brings food to what events as stuff that is probably beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, regardless of overall legnth issues. But as I'm not terribly familiar with Islam I didn't want to remove it without research. Anyway my main reservation is with the intro... which does need to be improved before I think this is an FA. I will take a look at it tomorrow if no one else has gotten to it by then. --W.marsh 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nitpick: footnotes should go after punctuation (i.e. "...statement.^[1]" instead of "...statement^[2]."
  • Support.--Fallout boy 06:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I move the footnotes to before the periods as you requested. joturner 13:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Nice article with lot of references. Perhaps would have been better with slight less length.--Dwaipayanc 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I think it's hella tight. No criticisms at all. Fantastic job! The Disco King 21:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Maybe you should include info about the geometric art in Mosques. --Osbus 23:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I could work on that section later, but since the article is quite long already, I'll have to keep it brief. But certainly, that was something I overlooked. On the other hand, I want to make sure I stay specific to mosques and not delve to far into Islamic architecture; talking about the geometric art may do that. joturner 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment very nice article, although one thing that seems rather odd is linking to Allah while labeling the link God. Why not label the links appropiately? It's not like we're talking about unfamiliar terms. Besides, these kind of links are misleading. Sheehan (Talk) 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Allah is just a translation of God, I decided to use the word God in the article, but like to the Allah article. I don't want to give the impression that Muslims worship a different god than the ones Christians and Jews worship. I could have also linked to Islamic concept of God instead. joturner 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support with a few notes:

The location of the mosque was declared as such after Muhammad hosted the first Friday prayer.

I don't get this line. Does it mean Muhammed preached somewhere and declared the spot a place of worship?

Today, the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca and the Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina are considered the two holiest sites in Islam, respectively.

"Respectively" seems out of place here. The sentence is constructed in a way that the locations are attached to the specific mosques. If you mean one is considered holier than the other, I suggest rephrasing.

I removed the word. I was trying to say the Masjid al-Haram is the holiest site while the Masjid al-Nabawi is teh second-holiest, but I removed the word altogether because that's really irrelevant. joturner 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite the provisions allowing non-Muslims to enter mosques, there is still a difference in opinion, even in countries where Muslims are the majority, over whether Muslims should be permitted to enter. The Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca, for instance, remains the only mosque in Morocco open to non-Muslims.[54] However, mosques in Turkey are open to everyone.[55]

I think there's a typo here. I think it should say non-Muslims in the bolded spot. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the mistakes you mentioned above. About the first one, that was what I was trying to say. The Prophet Muhammad hosted the first Friday prayer at the location that was later declared the Prophet's Mosques. Hopefully my rewording of that sentence clarifies things. If not, go ahead and fix it. joturner 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - this meets all FA criteria as far as I can see. Sheehan (Talk) 02:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose based on the extremely poor quality of sources due to which the article has been delisted from good articles. The article relies extensively on unacademic web sources like about.com, Enyclopedia of the Orient (run by a Norwegian programmer), IslamOnline, sunnipath.com, modernmuslima.com, or no source at all. See Talk:Mosque#About.com_-_Dubious_Source.3F for more details. It's an utter disgrace to Wikipedia that an article on such a thoroughly researched topic uses virtually no relaible academic sources; it should never have been nominated for the featured status in the first hand. Pecher ^Talk 10:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I'd like to point out that Pecher was the one who delisted the artilce from Wikipedia:Good articles. Regardless, I'm working on rectifying this at least partially at this moment. joturner 13:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding Encyclopaedia Britannica to which you've just provided a couple of references, here is a statement from WP:RS: "Note that unsigned encyclopedia articles are written by staff, not by experts, and do not have the same level of credibility." That's certainly an improvement over Enyclopedia of the Orient, but still not enough for a featured article. Pecher ^Talk 14:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't it also say There is a wealth of reliable information in articles signed by experts that appear in tertiary sources like reputable encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica...? joturner 14:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Britannica's article on mosque is not signed; correct me if I'm wrong. Pecher ^Talk 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've, for the most part, replaced the not-so-good sources. There are maybe three more I'll replace, but because it's approaching 3:00am where I'm located, I'm going to retire for the night. Sometime tomorrow, in between or after some reality work, I'll finish up the final sources. In the meantime, feel free to comment. joturner 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have eliminated all of the bad sources, including the encyclopedic ones. joturner 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• You shouldn't be surprised by Pecher's conduct. He is pretty much opposed to any article that shows Islam in a positive light. He will drag you down using normal Wikipedia policy and will never be pleased with your changes. I suggest doing your best to address whatever issues he's states but realize his desire is to make sure the article does not make it as a FAC. User247 17:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ideally the article should avoid citing the Council on American-Islamic Relations as well. Andjam 14:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't really see why citing them is a problem, especially here where these are poll results and not, for instances, comments on the oppression faced by American Muslims. joturner 07:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain.Object. This is a good article, but the 'Functions' section - while much better than I expected - is not comprehensive, I am afraid. The 'Education' section mentions nothing about woman (can they attend the schools?), 'Social events' and 'Charity' sections are but a stub sections and a cursory glance at the literature about social functions of mosques indicates that we are missing any reference to the use of mosques as government propaganda machines, as well as discussion of relation between mosques and the local communities.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I will mention something about women being allowed into Islamic schoools. However, what in the link you provide refers to mosques being used as propoganda machines? The relationship between mosques and the local communities I believe is discussed in a subsection under History. Perhaps I could expand the 'Social events' and 'Charity' sections, but I don't want to give undue weight to these subjects, especially in an article of such great length already where other more relevant topics are discussd. Nevertheless, I will most likely add a bit of (but not too much) information to the sections while I working on addressing Pecher's concerns. joturner 00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• For propaganda and government control, see this. I am not an expert on mosques, but I definetly think that more sociological information and references should be added to the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I added information regarding Saudi influence on foreign mosques. See my latest comment in below in response to Tickle me for more information. I didn't want to go over-the-top with the subject as that would be giving it undue weight. joturner 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the changes. I still think that the article would benefit from more social science academic citations and sociological perspective, but as I am not a specialist in sociology of religion I will change my vote to abstain for now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now. I see that concerns on link quality are being addressed, however right the first entry of Piotrus' list informs about the issue of governmental influence on mosque building and it's political implications. The Islamic Supreme Council of America cites an extensive piece from the Washington Post, relating political issues concerning the building of mosques all over the world:

• "...70 percent of [US] mosque leaders were generally favorable toward fundamentalist teachings, while 21 percent followed the stricter Wahhabi practices."
• "...The survey also found that the segregation of women for prayers was spreading, from half of the [US] mosques in 1994 to two-thirds six years later."
• "...the kingdom established ... 1,500 mosques and 2,000 schools for Muslim children in non-Islamic countries, according to King Fahd's personal Web site."
• "In the United States, Saudi Arabia's infrastructure of preachers and money started as a bulwark against the spread into American mosques of radical Shiism, which surged after Khomeini deposed the shah of Iran."
• "...Hathout, an outspoken critic of Wahhabism, said the result was the increasing isolation of women in American mosques starting in the 1980s. 'Mosques became gender-segregated, which didn't make any sense at all,' he said"

The issue of gulf states, mainly Saudi Arabia financing new mosques to propagate Wahabism and Mosques as centres of Islamist activities is not being dealt with at all, as is the controversial role of mosques as focal points for political islam. The New Republican writes on the "Saudi government-backed Muslim World League and other clerical endowments continu[ing] to finance mosques and seminaries in every Arab country", detailing the struggle for dominion on political orientation against rulings in more secular Near East countries regarding the curricula taught. At the moment the article reflects what a conservative Muslim government might report on the topic, avoiding politics and controversy if possible. --tickle me 14:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll certainly add this information to the article. But not at the moment; the real world calls. joturner 16:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think I addressed the concerns. It seems like the subject of foreign Saudi influence could warrant its own article. In the Mosque article, I only discussed information that related directly to mosques. The article you told me about, as well as a few other sources I found, talks extensively about the connection between Saudi charities and terrorism, but that is irrelevant to mosques and thus omitted it. I also didn't go over the top with the information on Saudi influence in other countries as that would give the subject undue weight. joturner 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support The article is well written. The idea of adding unrelated items of terrorism on an article solely addressing Mosques is unwarrented. If someone has an axe to grind then they can create a new article focusing on it. Great work and let me know if you need any help. User247 17:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object This article could greatly benefit from a section on the mosque’s political role throughout the Islamic world and in the west. To say “the mosque is the center of the Muslim community” doesn’t sufficiently describe its importance.

I’d also like to see a section on mosque’s role in contemporary social conflict, particuarly that resulting from mosques being built atop the sites considered holy by other religions; e.g. Ayodhya’s Babri Masjid, which was destroyed in the 1990’s after the claim - apparently accurate - that it had been built over a Hindu temple destroyed by the Mughals, and most especially Al Aqsa, the importance of which to international political and military conflict can scarcely be disputed, built atop the most (arguably the only) sacred site in Judaism, yet now considered one of the most important mosques in the Islamic world.

In Iraq over the past few years, we've seen both issues coming up front and center, with mosques as the bases for populist political factions as well as staging grounds for insurgent activity and ensuing battles.

There's a lot of good work here, but these serious, highly salient points of interest are far too relevant, both contemporarily and historically, to be left unaddressed.Timothy Usher 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As my spring break has drawn to a close, I will have less time to devote to improving the Mosque article. However, I will consider adding a section (with a daughter article most likely) on the political role of mosques, especially if others agree it is relevant. But you shouldn't expect a 24-hour turnaround time. joturner 04:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't expect that. I realize that content creation requires a lot more time and effort than content criticism, as I'm engaging in here.

A better candidate for a daughter article would be entitled something like “Architecture of Mosques” or “Mosque design”, and would include “Features” and “Types of Mosques”, which are in both cases about design (where one might have easily considered “types” to mean Sunni, Shia, etc.), their role in city planning (“Mosques as focal points”), perhaps also including sections of sections of “Diffusion and Evolution”, wherefrom it could be aptly linked.

We might also consider a daughter article Mosques in Islamic Practice - obviously Mosques are only important because of Islam, but some have objected to length, and it would be an appropriate place to go into the details of religious practice at some length, such as the "Ramadan events" section which strikes me as somewhat out-of-place in the main article.Timothy Usher 05:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably create the new section late Friday night or Saturday. joturner 16:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the new section. I hope your concerns have been addressed. joturner 07:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely - there is still no discussion of Al-Aqsa, the most salient of political issues - but you've done a lot of good work here. I went throught the advocacy section and am pretty satisfied. I eliminated the last sentence, which I hope is alright with you - I'm not sure what the rules are here - if they are that other editors don't touch it, simply revert it. I don't dispute it's a small number, but I feel it better to let the facts, once presented, stand on their own and let the reader judge their significance for him/herself. Still looking at the other sections.Timothy Usher 10:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This article is comprehensive and the references are neutral. This article most certainly meets the featured article criteria. Pepsidrinka 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This article is well written, neutral and seems to meet FA criteria. -- Underneath-it-All 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Occasional stylistic bumps, but they can be ironed out easily enough. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• abstain Still Abstain (until NPOV issues addressed) NPOV is missing, The article could benefit from a section on the mosque’s political role throughout the Islamic world and in the west. To say “the mosque is the center of the Muslim community” doesn’t sufficiently describe its importance. Zeq 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I may have addressed this one with the new section (although I was intending to address some of the other concerns, not yours specifically). joturner 07:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you but it is not enough. It is also using words like "small number" without any sources for that statement. There is areal anti-Jewish anti-west incitment that goes on. Since you "took ownership" of this article I leave it to you to practice NPOV and write the facts as they are. If you wish me to step in I'll be glad to. Zeq 07:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to await others' comments. If I still hear complaints of POV, perhaps something can be done. I used words like "small" as you indicated in the FAC because I didn't want it to sound like one can step into any mosque and just hear condonements of bombings and terrorism, as that clearly is not true. joturner 08:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object Lead section has citations, and mentions stuff that isn't in the body of the article. Andjam 14:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• What's wrong with citations in the lead section? And what is mentioned in the intro but not mentioned in the rest of the article? joturner 15:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• The lead section is a summary of the body of the article, so the citing should be done in the body, not in the lead section. An example of something being mentioned in the lead section but not the body is the word "sajada". I've also left some comments in the article's talk page. Thanks, Andjam 00:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• From Talk:Mosque...

• Citations in lead section is a problem.
• The word "sajada" is mentioned in the lead but not in body. This'd be in conflict with how a lead section should be.
• Saying mosques could once only be found in middle east seems a little awkward.
• Starting the history with a negative statement (about minarets) seems a little odd.
• There is an inconsistent hyphenation of Masjid Al Haram
• "has acquired the nickname of city of a thousand minarets" - does this have a citation?
• The change from Egypt to Sicily and Spain in "Diffusion and evolution" is a bit sudden
• "While only two percent of the country's mosques appeared in the United States before 1950, eighty-seven percent of American mosques were founded after 1970 and fifty percent of American mosques founded after 1980." The "while" doesn't seem right to me. Any thoughts?
• There seems to be a bit of repetition between the history and Features section about architecture stuff.
• The phrase "images of spiritual figures or other animals" seems odd - it'd be suggesting that a spiritual figure is an animal.

• I believe I have addressed all of your concerns except for the

second-to-last one (about the repititon). I don't seem to agree. If you can give me one or more specific examples, I'd be glad to fix them. joturner 07:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article looks pretty nice. Wow, lots of pictures! :) --Aminz 08:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article is no way near FA status. Not comprehensive. Thumbs down. Amir85 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object As per Amir85. --ManiF 17:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)