| Revision as of 10:57, 17 July 2022 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,969 edits →Baháʼí Faith: wayward italics← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:07, 17 July 2022 edit undoGazelle55 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,149 edits Overall thoughts on the articleNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| I am nominating this featured article for review because it hasn't been reviewed formally in over 15 years. The original FAC from 2004 is also (relatively) thin, with the nominator himself conceding that he {{xt|just stumbled upon it}}. The FA vetting process has been improved considerably since the noughties, and different standards apply. I posted an informal review notice on the talk page last year, to some response from editors interested in the topic, who nevertheless seemed a bit preoccupied with other tasks. ] (]) 15:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC) | I am nominating this featured article for review because it hasn't been reviewed formally in over 15 years. The original FAC from 2004 is also (relatively) thin, with the nominator himself conceding that he {{xt|just stumbled upon it}}. The FA vetting process has been improved considerably since the noughties, and different standards apply. I posted an informal review notice on the talk page last year, to some response from editors interested in the topic, who nevertheless seemed a bit preoccupied with other tasks. ] (]) 15:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC) | ||
| : Nice to see renewed interest in doing this.] (]) 15:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC) | : Nice to see renewed interest in doing this.] (]) 15:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC) | ||
| :: I'm glad this FAR is happening, I'll get started with some thoughts. I haven't participated in a FAR before so I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this, but having edited on Baha'i topics on Misplaced Pages a lot, I do think there are some problems with this article that need to be addressed. I just went point-by-point through the ]: | |||
| :: 1a. '''Well-written''' – no issues to my knowledge. | |||
| :: 1b. '''Comprehensive''' – one problem: | |||
| :: > I think the article needs to reflect more criticisms. This could be a "Criticism" section (see ]) or else just integrating some material from ] where appropriate in the article. | |||
| :: 1c. '''Well-researched''' – a few problems: | |||
| :: > Some sections of the "Social practices" section have no sources or few sources. | |||
| :: > Quite a few sources (including for some important claims) are from sources that do not meet ]. I could elaborate further on why individual sources aren't RS, but I'm speaking of those by Taherzadeh, Balyuzi, Esslemont, Walbridge, Hatcher, etc. These are written by Baha'i authors and published by Baha'i publishing houses and I believe this compromises NPOV in the article (not to mention using the Universal House of Justice, the governing body of the world's Baha'is, itself as a source). | |||
| :: > The part about the history, particularly the early history, doesn't reflect scholarly disagreements on the topic. Non-Baha'i scholars including Denis MacEoin, Abbas Amanat, and Juan Cole have written in depth about the early history of the Baha'i Faith (and its precursor religion, Babism). In particular, I have a copy of the ebook of MacEoin's extensive work ''The Messiah of Shiraz'' published by Brill and its findings are often at odds with those in this article (e.g., did the Bab actually make a prophecy that he would be followed by another messenger in 19 years as the article currently says?). I don't insist on that exact source being cited, but it should be clear to readers that there isn't consensus that the religion's early history happened the way Baha'is now believe it did. | |||
| :: > One citation is simply to "From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer dated 9 June 1932" and needs to be improved. | |||
| :: 1d. '''Neutral''' – one problem: | |||
| :: > The "Shoghi Effendi's summary" section is based on a primary non-independent source. Unless this quote is highlighted in secondary sources, I don't think it should be in the article since it is potentially not NPOV, again the Baha'i Faith's view of itself rather than the appraisal of secondary sources. | |||
| :: 1e. '''Stable''' – no issues to my knowledge. | |||
| :: 1f. '''Copyright compliant''' – no issues to my knowledge. | |||
| :: 2a. '''Lead''' – no issues to my knowledge. | |||
| :: 2b. '''Appropriate structure''' – no issues to my knowledge. | |||
| :: 2c. '''Consistent citations''' – no issues to my knowledge. | |||
| :: 3. '''Media''' – no issues to my knowledge. | |||
| :: 4. '''Length''' – no issues to my knowledge. | |||
| :: So overall, it is a strong article in most respects but there are some important issues to be addressed. Happy to help with improvements to the extent I have time. Also interested to hear thoughts from other editors. ] (]) 14:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:07, 17 July 2022
Baháʼí Faith
Baháʼí Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Cuñado, Gazelle55, dragfyre, Bahá'í Faith WikiProject, diff for talk page notification 2021-11-15
- Additional notifications: Dominic, Smkolins, WP Iran, WP Religion, WP Islam, WP History, WP Theology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because it hasn't been reviewed formally in over 15 years. The original FAC from 2004 is also (relatively) thin, with the nominator himself conceding that he just stumbled upon it. The FA vetting process has been improved considerably since the noughties, and different standards apply. I posted an informal review notice on the talk page last year, to some response from editors interested in the topic, who nevertheless seemed a bit preoccupied with other tasks. Nutez (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nice to see renewed interest in doing this.Smkolins (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm glad this FAR is happening, I'll get started with some thoughts. I haven't participated in a FAR before so I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this, but having edited on Baha'i topics on Misplaced Pages a lot, I do think there are some problems with this article that need to be addressed. I just went point-by-point through the featured article criteria:
- 1a. Well-written – no issues to my knowledge.
- 1b. Comprehensive – one problem:
- > I think the article needs to reflect more criticisms. This could be a "Criticism" section (see Misplaced Pages:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism) or else just integrating some material from Criticism of the Baha'i Faith where appropriate in the article.
- 1c. Well-researched – a few problems:
- > Some sections of the "Social practices" section have no sources or few sources.
- > Quite a few sources (including for some important claims) are from sources that do not meet WP:RS. I could elaborate further on why individual sources aren't RS, but I'm speaking of those by Taherzadeh, Balyuzi, Esslemont, Walbridge, Hatcher, etc. These are written by Baha'i authors and published by Baha'i publishing houses and I believe this compromises NPOV in the article (not to mention using the Universal House of Justice, the governing body of the world's Baha'is, itself as a source).
- > The part about the history, particularly the early history, doesn't reflect scholarly disagreements on the topic. Non-Baha'i scholars including Denis MacEoin, Abbas Amanat, and Juan Cole have written in depth about the early history of the Baha'i Faith (and its precursor religion, Babism). In particular, I have a copy of the ebook of MacEoin's extensive work The Messiah of Shiraz published by Brill and its findings are often at odds with those in this article (e.g., did the Bab actually make a prophecy that he would be followed by another messenger in 19 years as the article currently says?). I don't insist on that exact source being cited, but it should be clear to readers that there isn't consensus that the religion's early history happened the way Baha'is now believe it did.
- > One citation is simply to "From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer dated 9 June 1932" and needs to be improved.
- 1d. Neutral – one problem:
- > The "Shoghi Effendi's summary" section is based on a primary non-independent source. Unless this quote is highlighted in secondary sources, I don't think it should be in the article since it is potentially not NPOV, again the Baha'i Faith's view of itself rather than the appraisal of secondary sources.
- 1e. Stable – no issues to my knowledge.
- 1f. Copyright compliant – no issues to my knowledge.
- 2a. Lead – no issues to my knowledge.
- 2b. Appropriate structure – no issues to my knowledge.
- 2c. Consistent citations – no issues to my knowledge.
- 3. Media – no issues to my knowledge.
- 4. Length – no issues to my knowledge.
- So overall, it is a strong article in most respects but there are some important issues to be addressed. Happy to help with improvements to the extent I have time. Also interested to hear thoughts from other editors. Gazelle55 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)