Wikipedia:Peer review/Abbey Mills Mosque/archive1

Abbey Mills Mosque

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe its prose is well-written and well sourced, its voice represents neutrality between the various factions, and I believe it has the potential to become a featured article. It has already been listed as a good article, and I am soliciting more feedback to take it to the next level. The one enhancement I can think of would be to add a picture of the site in question, but no free-use ones exist. I contacted someone in February about obtaining an image, but it has not happened yet.

Thanks, Avi (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Seen and addressed. Except I think that the 1 paragraph lede is appropriate, thoughts anyone? -- Avi (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Looking at the size of the article and WP:LEAD I would say two paragraphs are better for the lead. I will also say I have never seen a recent FA with a one paragraph lead (although there is probably one out there somewhere). My rule of thumb for the lead is to make sure everything that is a header is at least mentioned in the lead. Here are some other suggestions for improvement:

- - Lede re-written to encapsulate entire article. -- Avi (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"For this reason it is often informally referred to in press discourse as a plan for a “mega-mosque.” " Why is mega-mosque in bold (WP:MOS#First_sentences says boldface is not used subsequently in the first paragraph)? Also the quote should be inside the period "mega-mosque".
- As "mega mosque" is the term that is used most often by the press (32,700 Ghits for "mega mosque" vs. 890 for "Abbey Mills Mosque") I thought it deserves bolding. However, in my opinion, the prose ran better with the explanation coming prior to the epithet, which is why it is not in the first sentence. As for the period, While I have my Chicago Manual of Style at work, see here for why I put the period inside the quotation marks. I am fine changing the word "term" in the last sentence of the first paragraph to "phrase" for clarity. -- Avi (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK thanks for the explanations. By the way, the period inside the quotes is from Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation_marks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, that trumps CMoS, so I will change the position of the periods. -- Avi (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give both metric and English units (18 acre) - {{convert}} is useful here
- Done. -- Avi (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provide context to the reader - Originally, plans were submitted to the mosque's officials with the plans of Mangera Yvars receiving most publicity.[1][7][8] Who is "Mangera Yvars"? See WP:PCR
- I believe it is better now. -- Avi (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try using "As of April 2008," instead of "The current plan" in The current plan incorporates a mosque capable of accommodating 12,000 people,... as plans change and time rolls steadily on
- Done -- Avi (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can a mosque really make plans? The mosque also plans to make full use of natural resources to reduce its energy consumption and increase its recycling.[9]
- Corrected. -- Avi (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use past tense for things in the past and give dates, so Ali Mangera, one of the architects who was submitting a proposal for the design competition, stated that his design... should be Ali Mangera, one of the architects who submitted a proposal for the design competition in [YEAR], stated that his design ...
- Section re-written due to lede enhancement. -- Avi (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid unnecessary repetition - the Project and Size sections both give the same information about Mangera's unsuccessful design and the firm chosen instead
- Section re-written due to lede enhancement. -- Avi (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be specific in attributions - who reported that In July 2007, it was reported that the land upon which the Abbey Mills Mosque is supposed to be built is considered have a medium-to-high contamination risk.[12] ? or who raised the concerns in Concerns were raised as to how the project would be funded...?
- Done. -- Avi (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Public relations and Public discussion sections are both very short - can they be combined or perhaps expanded?
- Combined. -- Avi (talk)
Is there a design picture of the proposed mosque to use here - would have to be WP:FAIR USE I imagine.
- Actually, this is one of the reasons I got involved with this article in the first place. The original picture was that of the Mangera Yvars design. The mosque's own public relations firm contacted the m:OTRS list with some conerns about the article, including the use of the image that no longer represented the Tablighi Jamaat's choice. Further, there was friction between Mangera Yvars and the Tablighi Jamaat, so the article needed to be handled with care. The result, at least vis-a-vis the picture, is that there is no acceptable fair-use image available of any proposal; Allies and Morrison have not posted one, and Manger Yvars is both defunct, and may have legal issues. That is why I have the Allies and Morrison pumping station from Commons there, and asked the photographer of that image to please take a picture of the site. -- Avi (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, thanks for the explanation Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In refs, I would link directly to the BBC and not to the mosque hosting a BBC report. Try to get independent third party sources whereever possible.
- Done, but I cannot find a written transcript, only the BBC streaming video feed. -- Avi (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that is the only source, it is the only source. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is [a] real tendency for [the] authors of this article to not use articles throughout - this needs a copyedit.
- - That tendency has been reversed, I hope. -- Avi (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intersting article, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you very much, these are excellent suggestions, and I will address them one-by-one as I complete the improvements. -- Avi (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are very welcome, keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

I suggest the following be done before approaching FAC, as it's easier for everyone to have less to deal with on the FAC. Ask User:Epbr123 to do a MoS check, ask User:Elcobbola or User:Black Kite to check the images, and ask User:Ealdgyth to review the sources (she's traveling now). I can easily spot some MoS issues, hyphen problems, curly quotes (here's a sentence with missing hyphens and curly quotes: The video was posted by a 23 year old man from Stevenage, named Muhammad, better known by his online moniker of “Abdullah1425.”), but I'm more concerned about the shortness of some of the sections (can the short stubby sections be better developed or merged together)? Because it deals with architecture, I also suggest asking User:Giano to have a look; he will be able to spot any possible deficiencies wrt comprehensiveness and suggest areas that may need beefing up. It appears well cited, and the citations are correctly formatted; the MoS cleanup will be easy for someone like Epbr. I think it's definitely GA now and it should be an easy pass there. I'd like for the WP:LEAD to flow better; there are two one-sentence paragraphs. Also see WP:MOSBOLD and WP:LEAD; if mega-mosque must be bolded it should be worked into the article sooner. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]