- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 12:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Du'a Arafah
edit- ... that during the Hajj, Shia Muslim pilgrims from all over the world go to the Arafat desert to chant Du'a Arafah?
- ALT1:... that Du'a Arafah is a Du'a chanted by Shia Muslims every year on the day of Arafah during the Hajj at Arafat desert?
- ALT2:... that Du'a Arafah is a Du'a that was narrated by Husayn ibn Ali, the third Imam of Shia?
Created by Saff V. (talk). Self-nominated at 10:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC).
Not so much a review, but I would suggest that before this is seriously considered the prose be brought up to standard English. It's got too much of a non-native speaker feel to it as is. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Victuallers: Can you help to copy edit the article?Saff V. (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced, but uninteresting - see below. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found. QPQ unnecessary and image properly licensed. An informative article - I thought until recently the Arafat Desert was banned at the same time as trans fats.
- @Victuallers: Can you help to copy edit the article?Saff V. (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is a great little article, but as much as I'd like to send it on it's not ready. The references are done inconsistently and incompletely, esp. notes 9 and 10. Notes 4 and 5 are from the same source but done differently; I don't know what the GGKEY part means in note 2. Also, I cannot tell whether Noormag is a reliable source (plus, I'm ashamed to say, I can't read it). And it still needs copyediting, but I think that needs to be done by someone with solid knowledge of the subject matter: that person is not me. I glanced through the list at Category:Muslim Wikipedians, but didn't see anyone I know. That person, an experienced Wikipedia editor who also knows the subject matter, can also take care of the references. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- According to this page, copy editing of the article is completed.Saff V. (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Saff V., the GOCE work may have been completed on October 8, but Drmies has nevertheless found some remaining issues with the prose, though it has been improved from before. It looks like more work is needed, and the problem is finding someone who knows the subject matter to do it. Perhaps you could request assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Shi'a Islam task force, since this is a Shi'a Islam article? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have a problem with the opening sentence already, which seems to lack an article. I think there are titles that need to be italicized. I see minor punctuation errors/infelicities. In short, plenty of work. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset I think that sa.vakilian can help you in the article. This user is member of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Shi'a Islam task force and is active member in the project.Saff V. (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Saff V., I'm glad to see that sa.vakilian will be helping you. Please be sure to let us know here when the work has been completed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- I will be happy to help you with it.Seyyed(t-c) 05:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Saff V. and Seyyed, it has been nearly two weeks, and there have been no edits made to improve the article. This nomination is now over ten weeks old, and we cannot hold it open much longer unless the improvements are made soon. We need to see significant work being done within the next several days. Thank you for your attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset What should we do?Saff V. (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Saff V., Drmies told you that there were problems that needed fixing, and I can see that this is true. For example, the second sentence of the "Authenticity" section is unclear, to the point that the "abbr" template was added to highlight a problem with the wording of part of it, though that is not the only problem in the sentence. The reason we cannot help you is that we don't understand the religious background and specific concepts. With Sayyed's help—and I think he is going to have to do the majority of the work to keep the prose level up—you need to go over this section and the rest of the article and make the prose more clear, specifically addressing those issues that Drmies mentioned. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset I fixed issues of sources in the references section. References (Ref.) 4 and 5 are not the same but they indexed in same citation database, Noormag. Noormag is an Islamic citation database that consist of many Islamic journals. Ref. 5 was from Mighat-e-Hajj and 4 was from Meshkat journal. In Ref. 2, GGKEY is id and I wrote this source by Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books.Saff V. (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Ex use me. At present I am too busy. @Mhhossein: can help you with it.Seyyed(t-c) 07:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Who is it knocking? Hmmm...I'm doing the job now! Mhhossein (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Saff V.: I can't understand how the last section can be related to this topic! The first sentences are talking about Friday prayer, as I understood. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein:In Bihar al-Anwar, the day of Arafah know as prayer day but for clearing the subject, I explained about Friday prayer. The first part of this section is example for second part. If it is not necessary I can remove it.Saff V. (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Remove the synthesized part, please! --Mhhossein (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the section! Mhhossein (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein:In Bihar al-Anwar, the day of Arafah know as prayer day but for clearing the subject, I explained about Friday prayer. The first part of this section is example for second part. If it is not necessary I can remove it.Saff V. (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Saff V.: I can't understand how the last section can be related to this topic! The first sentences are talking about Friday prayer, as I understood. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I'm
Done with the copy edit. I see no further problem. Mhhossein (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC) - Made a copy edit to the first hook. Will look at article. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Made some copy edits to the article. I still have some issues, though. A minor one is that the reference for http://www.leader.ir/langs/learning/haj/02/2.php is not done properly (obviously I can't improve it), and the source itself seems doubtful, if only because it's only five sentences on the official website of Khamenei, which I doubt we accept as a reliable source--we don't need to be reminded here that these may well be disputed statements, and a better source is needed. Which brings me to my second point: we do have what appears to be an impeccable source, In Search of the Lost Heart; I think this book should have been mined further if only to address the exciting and important matter of the "second part", whose textual provenance apparently is questioned by some and whose recitation may have been reserved for intimates. Absence of questions about doubt in our article make me question its neutrality, even if those questions are answered in scholarship. And I noticed a third point, just now--another reliable source, Revolution Under Attack, cited in the last note, does not seem to verify the statement attributed to it. The page number given ("74--") is a bit vague; I assume we're talking about the "Arafa prayer"? (if that's a valid alternative name such needs to be indicated in the article; that goes for "Dua al Arafah" as well) but the text does not seem to list the given names. In addition, "Some philosophers have referred to this prayer in their works" is just way too vague for my taste (as are earlier statements such as "and gathered more information about it"). Drmies (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I made some minor copy edits to the article, too; not much was left to fix. I also fixed the "Some philosophers ..." sentence by referring to them more precisely as theologians and hadith scholars (as they're variously identified in their linked articles) and added a citation to an existing source to the sentence the hook fact comes from, which had been uncited. I'm afraid that I don't feel qualified to address the other issues Drmies raised, and that I can't read either Farsi or Arabic, so can't be of help with sources written in those languages. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 05:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Drmies and GrammarFascist: As a bilingual, I tried to fix some of the issues raised above. As for the "second part", to which Drmies pointed correctly, I'll take it into account and will add the related materials as soon as I can. Mhhossein (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Drmies and GrammarFascist: I tried to insert the materials regarding the "second part" of this prayer. I think It's enough for passing the DYK criteria. What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I made some more minor copy edits to the article following your latest edits, Mhhossein. Otherwise your additions look good! Nice work. @Saff V. and Drmies: I also made a minor correction to the primary hook; I did this in a separate edit so that it could be easily reverted if you disagree. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 08:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- @GrammarFascist: I am agree with you and completed the hook.Saff V. (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- I made some more minor copy edits to the article following your latest edits, Mhhossein. Otherwise your additions look good! Nice work. @Saff V. and Drmies: I also made a minor correction to the primary hook; I did this in a separate edit so that it could be easily reverted if you disagree. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 08:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Drmies and GrammarFascist: I tried to insert the materials regarding the "second part" of this prayer. I think It's enough for passing the DYK criteria. What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Drmies and GrammarFascist: As a bilingual, I tried to fix some of the issues raised above. As for the "second part", to which Drmies pointed correctly, I'll take it into account and will add the related materials as soon as I can. Mhhossein (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: This DYK is complete. Please sum up it.Saff V. (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Saff V., since the prior objections were made by Drmies, I'm pinging him to do the final review to make sure his concerns have been satisfied. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I still see the vague "mentioned this prayer and gathered more information about it." I suppose that doesn't stand in the way of DYK, but it's not good writing. The "second part" bit has been addressed (though there is so much more to say...it's fascinating material), but I still see reference 6, lacking the original title and decent publication information--worse, I really doubt whether [1] is a reliable source: Google translate does not give me much fate. It appears not to be needed and if that is correct it should be cut. I'm going to do that right now so we can send this on its way--but it's a shame that this had to take so long. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
