Jump to content

Talk:Abbey Mills Mosque: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
{{fac}}
WP:FAC: new section
Line 65: Line 65:


I would like and try to take this to [[WP:FAC]], so I have opened a peer review request as shown above. There have been some excellent suggestions already, and I'm looking forward to more constructive criticism on the article. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like and try to take this to [[WP:FAC]], so I have opened a peer review request as shown above. There have been some excellent suggestions already, and I'm looking forward to more constructive criticism on the article. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

== [[WP:FAC]] ==

Thank you, everyone, for the constructive criticism and help. The article is now at FAC as [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abbey Mills Mosque]]. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:24, 11 May 2008

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

Good articleAbbey Mills Mosque has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 11, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Category

This seems to fit, but in case I'm wrong remember it's important to be reasonable and civil when using Category:Anti-Islam sentiment or any such category.--T. Anthony (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely not. That is pure POV. The opposition is not discriminatory. Yahel Guhan 05:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image is Mangera's, and he is no longer associated with the project. There neither a valid claim of fair use nor a valid reason for that image to be here. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

  • Newspapers in refs (eg. The Daily Telegraph) need to be in italics
    •  Done
  • "as a plan for a “mega-mosque.”" - why bold?
  • "The Daily Telegraph reported that it was expected" - again, needs italics?
    •  Done
  • "did not choose Mangera's design for the final plan, deciding on a scaled-down structure.[11] Instead, the mosque's trustees appointed the firm of Allies and Morrison to design the mosque." - this gets confused half way through about who was rejected and who was accepted.
    •  Done
  • "Concerns have also been raised" - "also" not necessary
    •  Done
  • Tablighi Jamaat only needs to be wlinked once or twice in the article; same with common words like Islam, Alan Craig, etc.
    •  Done
  • Not sure where the Public relations section fits in...(just personally)
  • "In July of 2007" --> In July 2007, "In September of 2007" --> In September 2007
    •  Done
  • "until November of 2007" --> until November 2007
    •  Done
  • "when the link was removed" - this is evident as you provide an "until" date, so you can remove these words
    •  Done

An interesting read. Please leave a note on my talk page when done with this. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

I would like and try to take this to WP:FAC, so I have opened a peer review request as shown above. There have been some excellent suggestions already, and I'm looking forward to more constructive criticism on the article. -- Avi (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone, for the constructive criticism and help. The article is now at FAC as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abbey Mills Mosque. -- Avi (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]