View text source at Wikipedia
Grand Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 10, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 January 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This page was proposed for deletion by Padavalamkuttanpilla (talk · contribs) on 6 January 2020. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: moved per lack of objection (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad → Grand Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad – I think the Grand Muftiship is the better title than Muftiship. Because Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad is now Grand Mufti of India. Kutyava (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.I have edited this page according to citation from a doctorate thesis. Available citations are mostly from recent news. But my edit removed by @Kutyava:. Same user issued on me the charge of vandalism and disruptive editing. The removal has been reverted. Irshadpp (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 07:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The article shares a number of the same issues as Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar; as such, the failed nomination for that article is a useful point of reference here.
In particular, this article is "is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria," and thus fails the first of the four criteria for immediate failures. Of the good article criteria, the clearest issues are with verifiability and breadth, but there are also concerns about neutrality.
First, significant parts of the article are unsourced. By way of example, the following sentences have zero citations between them:
More pressingly, the article is significantly lacking in breadth. In the last six months, a grand total of five events are listed. Even when events are listed, they say exceedingly little; "Issued official statement on Ayodhya dispute", for example, isn't useful without saying what the actual statement was. Nearly every entry here needs expansion: He received a "mega reception in Kuwait," but why was he in Kuwait in the first place? He arrived to Malaysia for his second visit—why, to go shopping or to go to a conference? He met with the ruler of Ras Al-Khaima; what did they discuss? There are ways to do a timeline of an important position, as articles on the Trump and Obama presidencies show. The main flaw here is simply that very few events are included.
As in the article on Musliyar, there are concerns about neutrality. He receives a "grand reception" here, a "mega reception" there, and is the "chief guest" on numerous occasions. But an article needs to say more than that someone is a cherished guest on the cocktail-party circuit; and this predominantly focuses on claiming how Musliyar is treated and perceived by others, rather than on what he did. These issues can be alleviated by expanding the breadth of the article, as noted above. But the amount of work required to do so means that this article is not yet close to good-article status. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The Timeline section resembles a desk diary. Wikipedia policy (WP:DIARY) is against this kind of thing. Is there any reason not to delete the Timeline section? Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)