Battle of Backbone Mountain

Muhammad in Islam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

To meet the GA criteria an article needs to 1. Well-written 2. Verifiable with no original research 3. Broad in its coverage 4. Neutral 5. Stable 6. Illustrated. 6: There are a few images, many have no relevance to the topic however. It lacks actual depictions of Muhammad in Islam, except for one. 5: The article seems to be stable, but seems to be in need of a general overhaul. 4: because of the points following now. Similar to the article Ali, the article reads more like a history lesson about Muhammad synthetized from Muslim sources, not to be about Muhammad in Islam. Neutrality cannot be established this way. 3. There is one section to refer to one scripture (Quran), one about the alledged history, then his proclaimed roles, and a section about miracles without any exploration on how they are received, it is simply calimed he did it. This is not much, it only appears so because almost every paragraph is given its own section. 2. Not only is the choice of section without any guidance from a secondary source, many inline citations are referring to primary sources, such as the Ahmadiyya community and not historical sources. Next, there are not even sufficient inline citations at all. Large portions of text stay completely unsourced. 1: Most of the article is actually Original Research. Therefore, I suggest to reassess the GA status and move it to at least C status, since the article has several serious issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle (talk • contribs) April 16, 2024 (UTC)

I do see a few sentences missing citations, which is certainly an issue. Could you give some examples of sources you believe are not acceptable for a GA-level article? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VenusFeuerFalle have you seen the above question? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I didn't. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can compare to what a reliable source is here WP:RELY. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and compare them to stuff like "Muhammad Shafi Usmani (1986). Tafsir Maariful Quran. Vol. 8. English Translation by Ahmed Khalil Aziz. "Al-Suyuti, Al-Khasais-ul-Kubra", and various QUran citations. Furthermore, the sources used rather point at WP:SYN. Please do not forget about all the other points and serious issues the article has. Also note, that the improvement sin the Miraj section are recent additions and would need a new review. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements in the article while the GAR is in progress are not only allowed but actively encouraged. The ideal outcome at GAR is that articles are improved to the point delisting is no longer necessary. I do ask that you keep in mind what may be incredibly obvious to you may not be so to me, I have only some basic knowledge of Islam (maybe more than the average American, but nowhere near the point I'd call myself well versed - I can at least tell you why the Sunni-Shia split is a thing). If I understand you correctly, you are saying the article is heavily reliant on the Quran itself for sourcing, which would be an issue due to WP:PRIMARY (especially inappropriate interpretation/synthesis of what's written in the Quran since it's a primary source) and our general expectation that articles rely mostly on secondary sources? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I came off as preassueming, I just thought my list was sufficient, especialyl due to the layout. I feel like the entire structure of the article reads like, Users cherry picked whatever sources they see fit. Furthermore, there is no historical critical analysis of Muslim sources (except for the Miraj section I improved a few days ago) and there is significant lack of hagiographic depictions of Muhammad.

I do try to work on the article while the reassessment is happening though. But yes, I think the lack of incline citations and reliance on primary sources should suffice to put it on a B rating, the lack of verification of structure would put it on a C- Ranking (in my opinion). If I could proof the lack of coverage, I would have made the additions already, but there is also a substantial lack of Muslim depiction of Muhammad as not a historical person but a holy person as well. I will try to update the article as much as possible. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the lead has been written on its own, without reference to the article it is meant to cover. There is not much relation other than that both have a biography, however the body biography seems to be at least to some extent contextualised in the context of the topic (Muhammad in Islam) whereas the lead is just a plain biography. I suspect the lead should be completely rewritten. The Gallery similarly seems entirely disconnected from the topic at hand. The In the Quran section needs secondary sources, as touched on above. The Biography section is better in this respect, although it does cite a Tafsir to explain what the Tafsir itself says.

I do agree that the article needs restructuring. While some parts of the biography do direclty explain context, in other areas it strays into a plain biography that is slightly off-topic. The biographical organisation may not be the best way to handle this either, as it is overbroad and overlaps with later sections. "Legacy" seems similarly overbroad, with sections like that it is not clear why for example the Muhammad's Night Journey and Ascension section is on its own. I don't have access to the sources, but for example it seems that items such as his example as a role model (Morality and Sunnah) could form a section apart from items such as his various religious religious roles (Final prophet, Muhammad as intercessor, Muhammad and the Quran). CMD (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]