Talk:Five Pillars of Islam/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I am placing this article at GAR for the following issues:

MoS compliance: There are copious citations in the lead, which are strongly discouraged except for statistics and controversial statements, none of which are to be found in the lead.
MoS compliance: The lead does not adequately summarize the article's contents: it includes nothing but a passing note about Shia Islam's Pillars.
MoS compliance: Footnotes ("Hajj", "talhaanjum_9" [whatever that means]) are mixed in with the citations; they should be in a separate "Notes" or "Footnotes" subsection and actually be explained.
Ref layout: Many of the citations have incomplete formatting, some of them bare links.
Reliable sources: I don't believe Looklex Encyclopedia is a reliable source, nor is the CIA World Factbook for anything about religions but demographic and political information, mainly statistics.
Broadness: This is my principle complaint. The article includes nothing on the history of the Five Pillars as a concept (or of Shia Islam's Pillars) or of how they've been variously interpreted by Islamic theologians and secular religious-studies academics.

I plan to remove this from the GA list if work on these criteria does not begin in the next few days. Tezero (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot all about this. Yeah, no way is this GA shape, however important the Five Pillars may be to faithful Muslims and scholars. Please renominate when it meets the criteria. Tezero (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]