Talk:Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 13:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. This is a fascinating topic, I'm excited to learn about it while reviewing :) --Cerebellum (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it up, Cerebellum. HouseGecko is responsible for much of the current content, but I've also contributed some of it and I'll try to help with any issues that may arise. Eperoton (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'm not done with the review but I've done all I'm gonna do today, see below. I'll try to finish up tomorrow. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Meets the GA standard, I did some copy editing, e.g. standardizing "Quran" to "the Quran". Let me know if I messed anything up. For further improvement, I found some parts hard to understand just because I don't know much about the subject so I lack context, e.g. when you first mention the Himyarites I could have used a sentence explaining who they are. The article is already long though so you may not want to go too far in that direction.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Use of references is outstanding, there are plenty of them and I like the formatting.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comment below about the "Outside Arabia" section. As far as the structure of the article goes, there is some redundancy between the first four sections and the "by geography" section, i.e. pilgrimages and the sacred months are discussed in the first four sections and then again in "by geography". You could fix this by getting rid of the "by geography" section, just incorporate the material into the first four sections, but that's not necessary for GA, just a suggestion for developing the article further. I'll defer to HouseGecko on this, the explanation below makes sense.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Represents a wide variety of scholarly views.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Pass.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Pass, good use of images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Pass, great work on this! You've collected information from a wide variety of scholarly sources and written a very comprehensive article. Thank you for responding to my comments so fast. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• descendants of the son of Abraham who had settled in Mecca: which son of Abraham? Ishmael?

Added Ishmael to the sentence. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Winfried Corduan doubts the theory of Allah of Islam being linked to a moon god, stating that the term Allah derived from Al-ilah like El-Elyon which was used for the god Sin, functions as a generic term. Please rewrite this sentence, I couldn't understand it.

Done. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• F. V. Winnet saw al-Lat as a lunar deity due to the association of a crescent with her in 'Ayn esh-Shallāleh and a Lihyanite inscription mentioning the name of Wadd over the title of 'fkl lt. Could you explain this a little more? I'm not familiar with Wadd or what fkl lt means, so I can't follow Winnet's argument about why this indicates she is a moon god.

Wadd is the Minaean (south Arabian kingdom) moon god. I've went ahead and clarified the sentence. As for 'fkl it means "priest" but that is already explained in the "priesthood" section. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Redefining Dionysus considers: what is Redefining Dionysus? Don't much here just a little context, something like "The edited volume Redefining Dionysus.

Rephrased sentence to "Paola Corrente, writing in Redefining Dionysus, considers..." HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• In south Arabia, rs²w and 'fkl were used to refer to priests. I guess that explains what fkl lt means. But what is rs²w? I've never seen a superscript number as part of language transliteration. You don't necessarily have to change it if that's the system scholars use, but is there another way to transliterate it that would be more accessible to a general reader?

That is how it's transliterated in the source. I don't really know if there's another way to transliterate it. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Priesthood and sacred offices: there are a lot of nowiki tags at the end of this section, do they need to be there?

Removed them. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• The procession from one place to Mecca: I'm not sure what the "one place" is, is it Mina?

Rephrased sentence. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• The known pilgrimages are that of Ḥilla who performed the hajj in autumn season while the other were that of the Ṭuls and the Ḥums who performed the umrah in spring.: This should explain what the Hilla, Tuls, and Hums are. It says what tribes comprise them but not that they are cult associations and what that means.

Added subheading "cultic associations". HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sexual intercourse in temples was prohibited and is attested in two south Arabian inscriptions: Does this mean that the prohibition is attested, or that people having intercouse is attested?

The prohibition is attested. Rephrased it. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• joined in the Kaaba: This is a little vague, maybe change to something like were petrified and their remains became part of the Kaaba if that's what happened.

They became part of the idols in the Kaaba. Went ahead and rephrased it.HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Outside Arabia section: is this section necessary? The article title only includes Arabia.

Pre-Islamic Arabia also encompassed parts of Jordan and Syria. This section refers to the religious beliefs of Arab tribes of that area. Culturally, they're part of the north Arabian sphere, so I've made that section part of the north Arabia section. As for the geography section, I think it's needed as Arabian polytheism does not refer to a single unified religion, but rather to the polytheistic religious beliefs of different parts of pre-Islamic Arabia, which while they share some rituals (the practices section encompasses rituals common to Arabia), many of them differ from each other. In fact, not all tribes of Arabia actually refer themselves as Arabs, but that would go to the Tribes of Arabia article which I'm planning to rewrite.HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

--Cerebellum (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Cerebellum Thanks for passing the article! I've worked on that article for quite a while on adding information, I thought it was too Mecca-centric before. I'd like to thank Eperoton, I believe he's the one who's largely responsible for the "Allah" and "Mecca" sections. HouseGecko (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)