Talk:Al-Lat/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Most of the text is clear enough, but I'm not sure what "the Arabic lexicographical tradition" and "Semitic traditions in general" refer to. Can this be clarified?

I'll respond to that since I contributed this passage. The source says simply "Arab traditions" and "Semitic traditions", and I'm not entirely sure what that means either. "Arab traditions" can mean either classical (i.e. medieval) Arab lexicography or the pre-Islamic Arab narratives preserved in al-Kalbi's Book of Idols, as the author discusses them both. For the connection to "Semitic traditions" he directs the reader to a book for further details. I have rephrased to avoid speculation on our part. Eperoton (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Eperoton. However, I'm still not comfortable with the clarity of some of the text. I asked a non-Wikipedian to see if this article was confusing to her at any point, and based on what she said there seem to be two problem areas.

First, there seems to be potential for confusion in the section on scholarly interpretations, in which the scholarly interpretations of particular pieces of evidence are separated from the descriptions of that evidence that appear earlier in the article. I think this problem could be fixed simply by breaking up that section and moving the text to directly follow the pieces of evidence elsewhere in the article—for example, moving the text of the section on the interpretation of the "grinder" legend to immediately after the description of that legend.

Second, the added text about the Satanic Verses incident is very unclear to somebody unfamiliar with the incident. At minimum, it needs to state what the Satanic Verses were (the verses that Muhammad supposedly uttered during a speech or sermon that later became Sura 53 of the Quran) and clarify when the sources that tell that story date to.

A more minor point of confusion is the sentence "The name Taymallat was attested as the name of a man from Gerrha, a city located in eastern Arabia" needs to state why that's relevant. I know why that's relevant (because a theophoric name invoking a deity is evidence that that deity was worshipped in the place where that person lived), but it's not immediately clear to the reader. A. Parrot (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. HouseGecko (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@HouseGecko: I'm sorry to keep harping on this point, but although it has improved, I'm afraid the section on the Satanic Verses still isn't entirely clear. It needs to state when the story was recorded and how far removed it was from the events it describes. For instance, the passage that says "all traceable to one single narrator Muhammad ibn Ka'b, who was two generations removed from biographer Ibn Ishaq" could be re-worded to state when ibn Ka'b lived (can it be pinned down to a century, or a pair of centuries?) and to state that his account was recorded by the authors of early biographies of Muhammad. It may not be necessary to list those biographers, but it is necessary to give a date range for them as a group, which I assume would be "eighth to tenth centuries", based on when Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari lived.

An ideal treatment of al-Lat would cover scholarly hypotheses about what the story of the Satanic Verses may mean about al-Lat's status and what Muhammad thought about them at that early stage of his career. I will not insist on that for GA status, but it's something worth keeping in mind if you plan to improve the article further. A. Parrot (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No original research as far as I can tell from looking at the sources; Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There doesn't seem to be much to say about al-Lat, given the sparse and fragmentary evidence, so the article is naturally on the short side. However, the Satanic Verses incident is probably the single biggest reason why anyone is aware of al-Lat today, and it should be discussed here, not merely offhandedly mentioned and linked to.

I have added more information on the Satanic Verses. I think it shouldn't be too long, as this article deals with the goddess and not the aforementioned verses. HouseGecko (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I can't read most of the sources, so it's hard to judge, but this subject doesn't seem to be particularly controversial and the text makes an effort to balance scholarly opinions against each other.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm putting the article on hold for a week, to allow time for improvements.

   Waiting one more week to address the clarity concerns I've raised above. A. Parrot (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   I'm afraid that, after no response from the nominator for more than a week, I have to fail this article. Its problems are not terribly difficult to fix, and I hope that HouseGecko will continue to work on them. A. Parrot (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)