Talk:Islamic world contributions to Medieval Europe/GA1

GA Review[edit]

I feel that the article has enough relevant content, as well as being broad enough in scope, to meet the Good Article criteria. It also appears to be well sourced with over 140 footnotes and 4 separate references. I reccomend the article for GA status. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd reviewer[edit]

While i agree with all the above, looking at the talk page confirms my inital feelings of the article being one sided. there must be scholars that contest this, and whether that is because of their studies or their biases is immaterial, they should still be included. And even with all the citation, there are a lot of:

Lack of blanace. eg: "Some writers trace back the earliest stages of merchant capitalism to the Caliphate..."

But many writers do not, and i expect some have views that cannot be reconciled with this at all. That needs to be said in many cases.

vague assertions of influence: eg "The story also anticipated Rousseau's Emile: or, On Education in some ways, and is also similar to Mowgli's story in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book as well as Tarzan's story, in that a baby is abandoned but taken care of and fed by a mother wolf.[125]"

Yes, they are similar, as the citation says, but so is the story of Romulus and Remus. Similariy != influence. We don't claim this author was influenced by the Aeniad.

uncited whole paragraphs making multiple specific claims: eg "These texts were translated back into Latin in multiple ways. The main points of transmission of Islamic knowledge to Europe were in Sicilia, and in Toledo, Spain (with Gerard of Cremone, 1114-1187). Burgondio of Pise (died in 1193), who discovered in Antioch lost texts of Aristotle, translated them into Latin."

uncited sentences making specific claims - many may have references, but need the citation duplicated more often. eg:Medical sciences were also highly developed in Islam as testified by the Crusaders, who relied on Arab doctors on numerous occasions. Joinville reports he was saved in 1250 by a “Saracen” doctor.[10]

The second sentence is cited, but the claim doesn't cover the first sentence. If the first was extropolated from the second, this is synthesis. If not, it needs a cite (maybe just a dulplicate of the appropriate cite). One guy reporting treatment != hughly developed medicine, so needs to be cited seperately.

also: "European scholars and writers influenced by this novel include John Locke,^[1] Gottfried Leibniz,^[2] Melchisédech Thévenot, John Wallis, Christiaan Huygens,^[3] George Keith, Robert Barclay, the Quakers,^[4] and Samuel Hartlib.^[5]"

Are the uncited authors without reference, or included in one of the other references? Why only cite some? either duplicate the cites, or delete those uncited.Yobmod (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead to short. For an article this long, and such a scholoarly treatment, the full 4 paragraphs would suit it better, touching on the important points, hence making it a summary that can stand alone.

Well written:
(a)Prose
(b)MOS

Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) references
(b) (depends on what one considers contentious)
(c)

Broad in its coverage:
(a)
(b) (presence of islamic characters in a play = too much detail imo, is not an important influence in itself)

Neutral: (needs to show people disagree with this interpretation of history)
Stable:
Illustrated: (a)
(b)

Overall, i think this article should go through a thorough peer review process before it can be called a Good Article.Yobmod (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Prose

I started looking at this article to provide a second opinion but found so many prose issues in the lead paragraph alone I am inclined to agree with Yobmod about a peer review. Its an important and interesting topic with a mass of sources and information and a peer review can only do it good!

examples;

...varied areas as arts.... the arts.

...Europe literally absorbed... Use of literally in this way is too slangy and stylistically unencyclopaedic. Its also unecessary.

This had considerable effects on the development of Western civilization, leading in many ways to the achievement of the Renaissance. Loose wording. What had considerable effects? The growing number of scholars?

Achievements?

References

These are not consistent. Many books have no publisher or ISBNs. At least one has no author.

Many passages are unreferenced. For example Various mechanical and agricultural equipment was adopted from Islamic lands, such as the noria and the windmill. Numerous new techniques in clothing, as well as new materials were also introduced: muslin, taffetas, satin, skirts. Trade mechanisms were also transmitted: tarifs, customs, bazars, magazins.

Links

A number of these link to irrelevent articles of the same name or disambiguation pages.

Lead

Far too short, simple and one-sided for such a substantial and important topic. I was surprised at the assertion from McDonald made in the lead as I thought such contributions were pretty well recognised and documented. Then I looked at the reference for McDonald and it is dated to 1931, yet it is presented as if it were the state of play now. This has a somewhat misleading effect. If there was a growing number of scholars in 1931 - then make that point. What is the general scholarly take on the subject now?

Fainites ^barley 18:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to understand that when you talk about "Islamic" we are talking about civilised society (history) not the religion. The "Islam" word is used because that is what the whole world refered to as the civilisation. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 17:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we are talking about a civilised society! The basic premise - that there was a significant influence over a range of domains, is not in dispute I think. There's a good article in all this to cover all the aspects, some of which are covered in more detail in various other articles. The concerns are about requirements for GA relating to the use of sourced information only, neutral and NPOV presentation and a range of MOS issues regarding prose,referencing, links and the like. Personally I always find a thorough peer review an illuminating and helpful process and this article will be the better for it. Fainites ^barley 21:51, 30 September 2008

For example, this statement; "Industries established for sugar plantations,[90] ceramics, chemicals, distillation technologies, clocks, glass, mechanical hydropowered and wind powered machinery, matting, mosaics, pulp and paper, perfumery, petroleum, pharmaceuticals, rope-making, shipping, shipbuilding, silk, sugar, textiles, water, weapons, and the mining of minerals such as sulfur, ammonia, lead and iron, were transferred from the Islamic world to medieval Europe" is not supported by the source given. Fainites ^barley 22:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the comments and suggestions above by Fainites. The article is too detailed with trivial mentions and has too many wikilinks. (You mention "clocks" more than one, and wikilink it each time.) Could not the article be condensed into sections on the major contributions of Islam? Matting, rope-making, water, perfumery, shipping etc. were developed by many cultures independently. Perhaps Islamic techniques should be renamed Islamic technologies and the sections under it condensed into fewer sections concentrating on the major technical innovations that are unique to the Islam heritage. Another major section could be Art or Aesthetics which could include literature, music, etc. Then a section on Science could include Medicine, Astronomy and mathematics, Alchemy and chemistry, Physics etc. Has this article undergone peer review? No one is denying the importance of the article, but I suggest you enlist help in organizing it and copy editing it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right I'll get to work right away. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs

Jagged 85 has made a start I see. I really can recommend the experience of peer review though you know. Whenever I've asked for one, I 've been lucky enough to get really knowledgable reviewers who have put in alot of work and helped transform an article from merely good to something verging on FAC quality. Fainites ^barley 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ G. A. Russell (1994), The 'Arabick' Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England, pp. 224-239, Brill Publishers, ISBN 9004094598.
^ Cite error: The named reference Wainwright was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ G. A. Russell (1994), The 'Arabick' Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England, p. 227, Brill Publishers, ISBN 9004094598.
^ G. A. Russell (1994), The 'Arabick' Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England, p. 247, Brill Publishers, ISBN 9004094598.
^ G. J. Toomer (1996), Eastern Wisedome and Learning: The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth-Century England, p. 222, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198202911.

[1] G. A. Russell (1994), The 'Arabick' Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England, pp. 224-239, Brill Publishers, ISBN 9004094598.

[Wainwright-2] Cite error: The named reference Wainwright was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] G. A. Russell (1994), The 'Arabick' Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England, p. 227, Brill Publishers, ISBN 9004094598.

[4] G. A. Russell (1994), The 'Arabick' Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England, p. 247, Brill Publishers, ISBN 9004094598.

[Toomer-222-5] G. J. Toomer (1996), Eastern Wisedome and Learning: The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth-Century England, p. 222, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198202911.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]