Talk:Oran fatwa/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 20:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that you've had to wait so long on this one. I'll take a look. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, a lot of good work has gone on here. I'm confident that it'll pass most GA criteria with ease. However, some of the prose here is a little shaky and stilted. It's not enough to stop it at GAN, but I would recommend that you make some changes on the basis of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example: "At the beginning of the twelfth century, the Muslim population in the Iberian Peninsula, called Al-Andalus by the Muslims, including Arabs, Berbers and indigenous converts, was estimated to number as high as 5.5 million". This feels a little lengthy, and could be structured in a manner that flows better; for example, "At the beginning of the twelfth century, the Muslim population in the Iberian Peninsula — called Al-Andalus by the Muslims — was estimated to number as high as 5.5 million, among whom were Arabs, Berbers and indigenous converts." Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"For example, the Treaty of Granada, which governed the surrender of Granada, guaranteed a set of rights to the Muslims of Granada," - "Granada.... Granada... Granada". This is a bit repetitive; try to replace at least the second and possibly the third use of this name with a descriptive synonym. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" a series of Muslim rebellions in Granada (1499–1501).[3][4] The rebellion was suppressed" - so is this one rebellion or several? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several. Updated the second sentence to use plural. HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" the ritual charity (zakat), even though by showing generosity to a beggar" - could you make this a bit clearer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated that passage, hopefully now it gives the reader a sense of what zakat is and that simply "showing generosity to a beggar" is usually an unacceptable form of zakat, but the fatwa considered it okay given the circumstances. HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The fatwa permitted participating in Christian rituals and worships outwardly, while silently considering them as forbidden." - "participating" should be "participation", "worships" should be "worship", and I really don't understand what the latter part of this sentence is trying to say. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done and clarified the latter part of the sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly urge the nominator to take this to WP:Peer review after GAN. The prose really could do with a very thorough examination from a native English reader/writer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Muhammad, or intending to curse someone else with a similar name, when being required to curse the Prophet Muhammad". No need to refer to Muhammad as "the Prophet Muhammad" here. Maybe just "the prophet"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The fatwa also allowed consuming wine, pork," - should be "allowed the consumption of wine, pork". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The fatwa's closing encouraged" - The fatwa's closing what? Closing lines? Closing sections? This needs to be clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified the sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"a whole range of Islamic religious duties" - a "wide range" perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The fatwa appeared to enjoy wide currency within the Muslim and Morisco community of Spain, for it was translated and copied as late as 1563 and 1609 in different parts of Spain" - "of Spain... of Spain", too repetitive. Perhaps the latter should be "different parts of the peninsula"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the repetitive mention of "Spain". HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The novel Leo Africanus features" - perhaps better as "Amin Maalouf's 1986 novel Leo Africanus" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the lede, why do we wait till the end before revealing who the author was? Shouldn't that go near the start? Similarly, why is the "Authorship" section of the article so near the bottom? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the sources that talks about Oran fatwa, I get the feeling that they tend to discuss the fatwa's content and its context in Spain at length first before talking about the author. And it seems that the author wasn't particularly known by historians except as the author of this fatwa. So, I feel that the authorship is less important, so they go at the end. I moved the "Authorship" section one section up, do you think it is enough, or do you suggest I do something else? HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that "Authorship" would be much better placed between "Context" and "Content". I will pass this article as a GA regardless or not of whether this happens, but I do think that it will make the structure of the article flow far more smoothly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done and thanks for the suggestion. HaEr48 (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have the citations standardised? At present we have different forms of formatting in use and that isn't ideal. In particular I'd recommend sorting out 10, 22, and 37, so that they match the majority. Also, do we need a quotation in citation 2 if we don't do so elsewhere? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed quotes from some citations. The reason I didn't pull 10, 22, 37 to the "Bibliography" section is that I feel those books are not too related to this article in particular, they were just used as reference to one or two passages in this article. So I worry it would be misleading to list them as "Bibliography". What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still incorporate them into the Bibliography. Certainly, when I am working on articles, I try to stick every source that is used in the article in the "Bibliography", even if they are only tangentially related to the subject matter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done if that's normal in Wikipedia. HaEr48 (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All in all this was a very interesting read, User:HaEr48, for which you should be congratulated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Midnightblueowl:, and glad that you enjoyed reading it :) HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any news on the last two points, HaEr48? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, @Midnightblueowl: and sorry for the delay. Please take another look. HaEr48 (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HaEr48. It's a great article; well done for all the hard work that you have put into it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! And thanks for reviewing, @Midnightblueowl:. HaEr48 (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]