Talk:Nation of Islam/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 14:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Penultimate supper (talk · contribs) 17:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to review this; I have a moderate amount of knowledge about NOI, mostly focused on prominent individuals in the history of the movement, but am by no means well-versed. The article looks very thorough at my first read-through and I'm looking forward to diving into it more deeply. Will try and provide detailed comments soon. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks penultimate_supper. Looking forward to seeing your review when it's ready. I hope that you enjoy reading the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's taken me a bit longer than I'd hoped, schedules are unpredictable with an infant in the house. I'll hopefully get it to you today, but Friday at the latest. It's a very well written article, and handles some difficult issues very thoughtfully; I've appreciated diving into it. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is my ~~first~~ second (but first in 5+ years) GA review, so if there's anything I've missed, done poorly, or which would be helpful for me to include, please let me know.

I'm comfortable passing this right now. I have suggestions for a few sections below, and minor notes on a few sources. I think there are some areas that could be expanded further and I think source material exists to do so (e.g., Relationship betwen the NoI and mainstream Muslim groups, Farrakhan's role as a controversial political figure, NoI educational efforts) but due to the length of this article, that should probably be done in seperate articles, and isn't exactly relevant to this review. Overall this is a thorough, thoughtful, and informative article that covers a complex topic comprehensively without being distracted by diving into unnecesary detail on any of the many fascinating areas that could have unbalanced the article.

Thanks for all your hard work on the article @Midnightblueowl:! — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Strongly complies with all MOS guidelines, even on some difficult areas such as contentious labels, which are all well sourced and seem to present the majority view among sources. A few small thoughts about words to watch are suggested on a section-by-section basis below.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Done very well, more details in the source review section below.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Not finding any issues using earwig, manual searching, or my 10% source review.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I think it does this very well, relying on reliable sources and appropriate voices.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No ongoing edit wars or content disputes, and any disagreements over minor issues of terminology seem be have been handled thoughtfully and through discussion over the last year+.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No concerns here, everything seems to be in order, and nothing included is non-free.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Section notes

Nothing here is critical, just some thoughts about article improvements.

- Lede
  - Adheres to all aspects of the MOS on ledes. Introduces core elements at a accesibille level; clearly explains why the NoI is notable with regards to prominent members, controversies, and role in wider Black nationalism; everything mentioned in the lede is included in other sections, and while not sourced in lede, is sourced in the article.
  - I tend to prefer capitalizing "Black" as an ethnic term, and the Black nationalism article and some of the sources here do so I think there's a strong argument for doing so, but the capitalization choice is used consistently throughout the article.
- History
  - It'd be helpful if history were moved forward to be before beliefs. Even with the strong lede and my above-average knowledge of the subject going in, I still found myself a bit confused by references to the roles of specific individuals, or to organizational aspects such as the Fruit of Islam before getting to the history section. Some solid articles on other NRMs use a history-first approach, but others mirror the current layout, so there are obviously reasons for either approach, but I think this article would be improved by the swap.
- Organization
  - This section focuses a lot on the NoI as an organization, but I would have expected more coverage of how it is organized, including questions such as: what sort of ministerial leadership exists, how are leaders chosen, what is the relationship between local chapters and the national organization. Jehovah's Witnesses#Organization includes some of what I mean in the first two paragraphs.
  - There might be some concern about the repeated used of reveal or revealed here and in a few other sections as unnecessarily implying that things are hidden when it is not explicitly being stated—and cited—that this is so. I think they are all pretty justified and probably intentional, but perhaps there could be inclusion of a statement of a general trend towards opacity/secrecy in this section to strengthen that, if sources support it, or a less intense word chosen if that's not the directio sources support.
- Accusations of prejudice
  - Should ' Further information: Antisemitism in Islam and Islamic–Jewish relations' be here if the article is taking such a clear position that NoI is a post-Muslim NRM? Doesn’t seem right to treat their potential anti-semitism as connected to Islam is they are a separate religious movement. Seems like it unintentionally implies that anti-semitism come to them via their Islamic roots, rather than being a distinctive characteristic, which I don’t think the article supports.
- External links & footer
  - The navboxes get a little overwhelming, on my laptop they take up three whole screens worth of verticals space. Pruning them might be helpful. At the very least I'd suggest getting rid of the scientology navbox, as the connection with dianetics takes up very little of the article space. People interested in dianetics may want to get here, so there may be an argument for adding NoI to that navbox, but It doesn't feel like people reading about the NoI need quick access to all the topics included in that navbox.

Source review

I reviewed around 10% of the citations—selected randomly—although because I had only limited access to the Gardell source and didn't want to delay the review because of it to wait for it to arrive from the library, I didn't review 100% of the randomly selected citations from that source once I'd reviewed enough to be sure it was being used well. Overall, the article draws from a wide variety of reliable sources, and does a great job at selecting which claims to include in wikivoice vs in the voice of a source, and making sure only to inlcude claims that enjoy widespread support in wikivoice. I fixed one tiny error, but otherwise the article makes immaculate use of SFN citation templates and well-formed references.

A few citations that I had minor concerns or suggestions about:

- 101 - Barnett 2006, p. 882
  - The group deems Christianity a tool of white supremacy used to subjugate black people, doesn't really seem the right wording for the claim made in Barnett, which is that the NoI sees "mainstream Christianity" as perpetuating white supremacy, which isn't quite as strong a claim as what's made in the article, and has a different sense of instrumentality that seems significant to me.
- 196 - Barnett 2006, p. 888
  - Male members typically cut their hair short, sometimes shaving the head entirely, and do not usually wear beards. The point about beards seems to be made on 889. There is a point about beards made in 888, but it's not a descriptive claim about the NoI, but part of a typology of religiosity the author is advancing.

Penultimate supper, I'm an accidental 'watcher', rather than an author on this article, and claim no credit for myself, but I would like to commend you on the thoughtfulness and acuteness of your GA review. Thanks.Pincrete (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete:, thank you for the kind words! It was my first review in a long time, and I'd only done one before, so I'm glad to hear it seemed thorough and helpful! — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]