Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Fourteen Infallibles/archive4

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 11:59, 18 March 2015 [1].

The Fourteen Infallibles[edit]

Nominator(s): Salman mahdi (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria of featured article.--Salman mahdi (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following are not (as far as I can see) used to support information in the text and can be taken out, I think (unless they are being used in a way I cannot see):

Martin, Richard C. Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Muslim world; vol. 1.
Akhtar Rizvi, Sayyed Saeed (1987). Prophethood. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania.
al-Shaykh al-Saduq (1982). A Shiite Creed. Fyzee (3rd ed.). Tehran: WOFIS. OCLC 37509593
Dungersi, Mohammed Raza. A Brief Biography of Imam Ali bin Muhammad (a.s.): an-Naqi. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania. GGKEY: 8634KUB72L4
Madelung, Wilferd (1998). The succession to Muḥammad: a study of the early Caliphate (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Why is Fatmah's birth given in the CE form as 605/15 – 632/633, but the AH form as 17 or 7 BH[6] – 10 or 11? Aim for consistency throughout – you'll need to settle on one form and make sure all the others are in the same format too. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#

Done, Thank you.Salman mahdi (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is needed to delete the "CE" in the Date of birth Column for Fatimah. Is it right?Salman mahdi (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

CE is essentially the same as AD, and so the 53 BCE in Muhammad's hijri lifespan (which you appear to intend to say "before the hijra") actually implies that he lived on Earth for almost 700 years - not something I've ever heard taught. Islamic calendar uses the abbreviation BH (once, admittedly; I don't see any references for a standardized term) which would be more correct. This needs to be fixed.
Another small point is that a lot of your phrases end with periods. Only sentences should end with periods.
Also, why are you giving five references for Fatimah's lifespan, and two for her titles? I doubt any of the information here is so highly disputed as to require such Citation overkill.
POV evident in terms such as "tragically", unsupported "famous"
Copyediting of the table still needs to be done (overlinking, spaces, grammar, etc.). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Crisco 1492:, with thanks,

Done
Done
Done
Done.Salman mahdi (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's been done? The citation overkill, for example, is still very prominent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ @Crisco 1492:, I tried to solve POV problem. Is there any other unacceptable phrase based on NPOV policy.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several points that I've brought up... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments this is needs more work. It is to be expected from someone not accustomed to using English so please try to CAREFULLY read all the comments by all the reviewers and try your best to solve them. Here are mine:

citation overkill means way too many refs. I completely agree. You do not need a reference for Mohammed's or Fatimah's name or for all the other 12 names. you may keep those for kunya
I don't see the use of giving the names in Persian. Why are those necessary?
for #1 and #2 why is there no Turkish title?
I think it is more useful to readers to give the approximate translation of the titles in parentheses not in footnotes
for dates please use this format "CErange (AHrange)"
why does Fatimah have two different references for her AH dates?
for date ranges I am pretty sure you can use a widely accepted islamic book and link that right after "Date of birth and death"
what is with the unknown dates for #14? I think it needs a footnote
for example "He is considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind.[13] According to Muslims God revealed the Quran to him which is the God's word and the greatest miracle." can be changed to "Muslims consider him the last prophet sent by Allah ?to? mankind. According to Muslim ?tradition?, Allah revealed him the Quran, [insert here something non-POV]".

I tried to make it NPOV. Is it OK?--Seyyed(t-c) 12:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why does the article use "God" but link to "Allah"?

I changed in to God in Islam.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2's importance doesn't even clarify that she is the daughter. other than spiritual "mother" of other 12, what is the biological relationship to them?
why is #4 important?
similarly, why do Muslims consider the remaining ones imfallible/important?
1. 7 is missing the separation for burial place
2. 14 needs a N/A for burial
perhaps remove "buried in"

Nergaal (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear@Nergaal:, with thanks for your comments

Citation overkilling is done.
We brought the titles in the footnotes because the table was too much cluttered and confusing.
For the first three, we can not bring AH, because it is before beginning the AH.
It is linked to Allah, because we wanted to mean God in Islam.
The family tree above it shows the biological relations between them.
Why do you think that #4 is important, we did not want to convey such a message.
As it is the list of the 14 infallibles, we can not give detailed information but the reader can refer to the links if interested.
#7 Done
I does not need because he is alive as it is explained.

Again thanks for your kindness.Salman mahdi (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the extra references. We can remove Turkish names as well. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Crisco 1492:, With thanks for the reviews, We have apllied all the suggestions, is there any other suggestion or problem with the article?Salman mahdi (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Looking only at references and reference formatting for the moment:

Sources should be alphabetized within each section. ISBNs should be given as properly hyphenated ISBN-13s (use this tool as needed; you can convert an ISBN-13 to 10 and back in order to restore its proper hyphenization). Web sources that do not have print editions (or that specifically site website-formatted editions, such as your Encyclopaedia Iranica references) should all have retrieval dates. You need to be consistent about whether you use the æ ligature in "Encyclopædia" or two separate letters, at least for any specific work (ideally based on the publication's preference); this is a problem throughout the encyclopedia sources.

Publisher locations are optional, but you need to stick to either including them for all print books, where available, or not at all. You cannot have some with and some without. Some of print works for which you cite non-ISBN reference numbers (such as Dungersi 2012 and Fatima the Gracious) have ISBNs available, and you should use those instead of Google or Amazon proprietary indices. You need to be consistent in how you reference publishers, such as Ansariyan Publications and the State University of New York Press. Burleigh Press should not appear in all-caps. The Ordoni 2013 source is self-published and not a reliable source. The Corbin source is not properly titled (the translators are not part of the title). The Ordoni 1992 source is not properly cited; as best as I can tell, Ibrahim Amini and Kazem Qizvini are the authors; Abu Mohammed Ordani was the translator. The Paulist Press printing of the work of Ibn al'Arabi needs to have its modern editor cited (Ralph Austin). You have references cited as Madelung 1985, Madelung 1985a, and Madelung 1985c. Presumably, there used to be a "b" that has since been removed.

I haven't looked at how these sources were used, but it strikes me that a lot of this material is cited to the publications of Twelver organizations (Ansariyan, Bilal Muslim Mission), rather than to independent historical analyses. That's not necessarily a fatal objection, but it may be cause for concern on POV or comprehensiveness grounds.

I am neutral on promotion based on the state of references and reference selection (assuming the easy problems are corrected). If other editors determine that the sourcing has resulted in POV issues in the article text due to the frequent use of Twelver references, then my analysis may also be read as opposing promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Squeamish Ossifrage:, with great thanks for your comments, by consistency in publisher references, you mean we use just the word for example "press" for all of them?

Ordoni 2009 and Qurashī 2006 both have "Ansariyan"; the rest have "Ansariyan Publications" (the latter is probably the correct choice). Amir-Moezzi 1994 and Nasr 1989 have "SUNY Press", Tabatabaei 1975 has "State University of New York Press", and Tabatabaei 1979 has "SUNY press"; either of the first two are generally acceptable, although I personally like spelling things out (we don't pay for ink, after all!). Meanwhile, looking over this some more ... you're also inconsistent about the use of diacritics. Compare "Qurashī, Bāqir Sharīf (2006)" with the other three Qurashi sources. Additionally, you should only author-link in the bibliography on first appearance, rather than every time. And while I recognize that this is intended as an article about an aspect of Twelver Shia faith, I remain concerned that it does not present a neutral point of view: several of the "Importance" phrasings are decidedly not neutral, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan's section presents only the Shiite religious interpretation. This article could benefit from a broader range of sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ordoni has been used for the Fatimah's titles and we can remove the titles, if it looks biased. I think 3 titles are sufficient.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@Crisco 1492, SchroCat, and Nergaal: We have tried to solve the problems, however please tell us whether you are satisfied or not. We are eager to know what should we do to make it a better list. --Seyyed(t-c) 18:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance I don't think you fixed ANY of my suggestions. I actually spent time going through finding suggestions hoping that it would become a decent list. However, you keep pinging me without really putting an effort into listening what I have to say. Unless you really care to work with the reviewers, please stop wasting everybody's time. Nergaal (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Nergaal:, I have worked on your comments and answered them above, would you please study above?Salman mahdi (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492, SchroCat, and Nergaal: With thanks for your comments, we have worked on all the comments, what else we must do?Salman mahdi (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.