Wikipedia:Peer review/Islam: The Untold Story/archive1

Islam: The Untold Story

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it documents a current event – the debate and furor surrounding the screening of a documentary that explores the historical development of Islam. A lot of work has gone into producing this article recently, and i'd be very grateful if someone gave a few minutes of their time to read through and review it.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the notes should be in ascending order, ie [13][5][11] -> [5][11][13]. The User 567 (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the advice! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• References need accessdates. I'd strongly suggest archiving web references using www.webcitation.org.
• Standardise reference formatting (I see The Telegraph in the publisher field when it should be in the work field, while the Hall reference doesn't even have its work included).
• "claiming that it lacks sufficient supporting evidence." - The critique or orthodox Islam history?
• Upon release, the documentary proved controversial, provoking criticism from figures within the United Kingdom's Islamic community who argued that Holland ignored the evidence that supported the orthodox account of early Islamic history. - Perhaps a split? Something like "Upon release, the documentary proved controversial. Figures within the United Kingdom's Islamic community argued that Holland ignored the evidence that supported the orthodox account of early Islamic history."
• "In 2012, Holland's fourth work of history" - Perhaps just "In 2012, Holland's fourth history"?
• Rather heavy on the quotes, even in the background section. Should be paraphrased.
• British Asians - In American English "Asians" would be East Asians and not South Asians. Perhaps a more universal term?
  • I've put a link in to British Asian – the term has a very specific meaning here in the U.K.. I hope that this fixes the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• You repeat the word "then" a lot, might want to be careful with that.
• "get Holland into trouble." - Sounds rather informal
• "Although he asserted that he did not know what devout Muslims would think of Holland's arguments, he did assert that they did not have "a monopoly on literalist affront"." - Assert ... assert
• Direct quotes should have citations immediately afterwards.
• That's it for today... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Crisco, thank you for taking the time to do this! It is much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• "statement in which they stated" - state(ment) ... state
• Some of the statements chosen might need to be more selective. You have two paragraphs (perhaps 200 words) dedicated to the views of people who, in the big scheme of things, aren't significant. Scholars, politicians, and whatnot... sure, but random students and protestors?
• Still very heavy on quotes. If you paraphrased these properly, you could trim the length of this article to about 10k characters and not lose any of the meaning. (FAs can be that short, such as my recent Mereka Bilang, Saya Monyet!)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I've cut down on the use of quotes some more; is this sufficient, or should I continue ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Still a bit of undue weight in the "Muslim opinions" section. As I mentioned, preferably notable commentators should be quoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• A few small comments, overall this looks like it's in GA territory.
• "Ofcom and the broadcaster Channel 4 received an estimated 1200 complaints regarding the program" You might want to add a brief explanation what "Ofcom" is.
• "The film's screening came a month after the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) screened the first episode of their television sitcom" Some repetition here "screening ... screened"
• The main question I have is if the film's conclusions are in line with the consensus among mainstream scholars (if there is such a thing). I know you're limited by sources, but anything you can add to place it in context like that would be helpful. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm, certainly, none of these sources mention this, but perhaps some of the reviews of Holland's book, In the Shadow of the Sword, would do... Thanks for the help Mark. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)