Wikipedia:Peer review/Islam/archive3

Islam[edit]

Generally what needs doing to the article, but also, should Criticism be kept on the article? I maintain that, like Christianity, Islam has been criticised so much it needs one, but Bhaisaab says other religions don't have one so Islam shouldn't either. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 07:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a controversies and criticisms section in the article on Christianity, there's even a (large) Criticisms of Christianity article; there's also an article on criticism of Judaism. The Hinduism article does as well have its own criticism subarticle. The Buddhism article, however, does not have a criticism section. Pardon me for just looking at the major religions. --Ouro 09:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but does that warrant a section in the main article itself? This is the question we are debating. Incidentally Judaism has a criticism section as well. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 19:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be neutral in tone, I think the article should include some referenced critical arguments. Otherwise it may get slapped with a neutrality tag and not be FA-worthy. But if the article is getting over-long and the removal of that section would help reduce the size, then the criticism section could be spun off into a daughter article and a summary used in the main article. However, I think this should be done with the primary intent of reducing the article size, rather than to hide the negative opinions from view. (Likewise for other religious-themed articles.) — RJH (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we're reaching 70k now. Some copyediting may be in order. Is there anything generally you could suggest for the article? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my review of Computer for my thoughts on Wikipedia articles covering broad concepts.

History section too short compared to the rest. Balance them by moving excessive detail from other sections to child articles and adding more to History section.
Is the Demographics of Islam important enough to deserve more than a link in the main article?
Why is "Dietary laws" a separate subsection from "Customs and behavioral laws"?

In general this article suffers from the same lack of balance that plagues every Wikipedia article on general concepts that I have seen. You do not want to give undue weight to subjects that people have contributed a lot about at the expense of other subjects that are equally important but not fun to write about. Try moving useful but overly detailed contributions to child articles while creating stub sections to invite editors to contribute more of what is needed. --Ideogram 13:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions to Computer have been challenged, so I will discount them temporarily. I have shortened and merged Caliph to History, Dietary Laws to Customs and practices, and deleted Demographics of Islam, leaving only a link. I've also tried to shorten the article in other ways. What do you think now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the Table of Contents I can see the organization is good. I will give it a closer look and get back to you. --Ideogram 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Five Pillars of Islam is the term given to what are understood among many Muslims to be the five core aspects of Sunni Islam. Shi'a Muslims accept the Five Pillars, but also add several other practices to form the Branches of Religion." Where can I read more about the Branches of Religion? --Ideogram 02:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Organization" section seems like a grab-bag. Sub-cats are "Mosques", "Islamic calendar", and "Customs and behavioral laws"; I don't see what they have to do with the Section title, and I'm not even sure they belong together. --Ideogram 02:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider moving everything in the Organization section out of the main article entirely. --Ideogram 02:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The History section looks much better but I'm sure you can say a great deal more about this important and fascinating subject. --Ideogram 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see any need for a "Criticism of Islam" section. Even if readers are interested in it, it doesn't need to go in the main article. --Ideogram 02:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about shortening the article (at least not for now). This is a big subject. --Ideogram 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]