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

Nominator: VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs) 02:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Abo Yemen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to review this so bad but Ill have to start reviewing it after im done with the other review that I've already started with. It will not take long (hopefully) Abo Yemen✉ 11:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I have not expected a review confirmation around New Year. Let me know when you start. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle Ok bismillah, we will start today. Sorry to have kept you waiting 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. But in turn I request your patience as well. The end of the month and the beginning of the next brings about a few deadlines and changes, I need to accustom to. I will try my best to check in frequently and address all potential issues. However, it is likely I will not be online every day.

with kind regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

dw no rush 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

may I kindly inquire your estimation of the beginning of the review? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry I totally forgot about this review. Ill be starting today (for real now) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I want to fix the citations after the rest has been accessed. During the assessment, it is possible that minor changes will be requested and as such, some citations may be added or removed. It is wise to do the citations at the end. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	On hold
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has left no comments here

Went thru the section headers and noticed that sufism got its own section but nothing on Sunni and shia islam. Is there a reason for that? @VenusFeuerFalle 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reason is as follows: Secodary literature has not noticed significant differences between the portrayal of Iblis in Sunni and Shia sources. Sufism and Mu'tazilism, on the other hand, have notable differences. Mutazilites by touching on the matter of free-will (contributing to the dispute on Iblis' nature) and Sufism by going in-depth on theological matters. But only Sufism has unique portrayals characterized as specifically "Sufistic" in secondary and tertiary sources, hence only Sufism as a separate section. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah alright 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The description "Fallen angel/jinn in Islam" isn't really correct; The theory that Iblis was an angel is disputed as mentioned in the article. How about "King [or leader] of devils in Islam"? @VenusFeuerFalle 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this is incorrect. The the "slash" separates two possible interpretations, as it is shown in the article. "King" is a royal title. "Leader of Devils" could work, but I am not sure if this is the primary motif. Since the description is a summary depending on the the content, I also would change it at the end. The body of text is of much greater concern, since lead-section, sources, and description all depend on it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has multiple refs which are either identical (e.g. [35], [36], [37], and again [48], [49], and again [104] and [107] for chapter 5, and similarly [105] and [108] for chapter 8.), and [67], [69], [70] for p. 246 of Brend, or which cover small, adjacent, or overlapping page ranges and should basically be merged (e.g. [48] ... [52], all of which are in the page range pp. 98–100 of Idel & Bernard, i.e. 5 refs down to 1); and for that matter the Brend refs can be slimmed down massively by merging all with the page range 245–246, which will include [67] ... [70], [73] ... [75], [77] (8 refs down to 1). In short, all the refs should be checked and grouped where possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there an addon or Tweak or needs it to be done manually? I know what some users have features to do it easily, they however, never worked on my browser. If you are able to do that, I would be grateful. Cheers VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @VenusFeuerFalle I usually do it manually and I don't think that there is any other way 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle: File:Semum (shaytān).jpg says that the source is your own work, how come? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edit: If you mean how I made the image: I took a photo from my screen, which creates a new copy right (as per WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT) and then cut the photo down to the entity in the picture from the image those copy right I owned.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle That's what I meant. The thing is taking an image of a 2d object does not create new copyright
Photographs of two-dimensional objects such as paintings in a museum often do not create a new copyright (see the section on the public domain below), as, within the United States, these are considered "slavish copies" without any creativity (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). and In case of a photograph or screenshot, you must also own the copyright for all copyright-protected items (e.g. statue or app) that appear in it
Unless you're the guy who recorded the movie, that frame of it isn't your own work. You can upload that image under fair use here on the English wiki though 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah interestig, did not know that. So I am gonna reuplad the image under different copy right? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in WP:FUW to be exact ("Upload a non-free file" button) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While uploading a Fair Use licensed version of the image, I encountered the following questions:

• The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this particular photograph/painting. (It is not just about the person or thing shown in the picture.)
• There is a substantial amount of encyclopedic discussion of this particular photograph/painting (not just about the person or thing shown in it) in this article.

The image is taken from a paper discussing that subject, so I would think it bears encyclopedic/scholarly relevance, but it is not precisely about the image. I am about to change the image license of the one I already uploaded to Fair use. However, I am not sure if this means it can be used any longer on Wikipedia then. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle I am so sorry for wasting your time; I don't think I am qualified enough to review this article. I am having a hard time trying to verify if it passes 1 ab, 2abc, and 3ab. I have a feeling that it is missing some stuff that I know about Iblis (as I am a Muslim myself) but I am not sure what is missing. I'll be placing the review for 2nd opinion so that a more experienced reviewer can take a look at it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I intentionally left out were the Ismailis. This is because I found only about three sources speaking on that subject and they use the term Iblis differently: While most sources, including the article, treat Iblis as a proper name for an angel/jinn, Ismaili sources speak of iblises (yes, plural) as a creature.

I see that the review might be challanging, even secundary literature is sometimes conflicting which made the article hard to work on in the first place, so I was happy to see another Muslim to make the review. Please do not feel bad for asking for a second opinion, even Religious Studies seem to come to their limits on that matter sometimes, as there entire books written on only one part of a section. Awn for example, wrote about Sufism only and dedicated an entire book on that matter. Muslim sources, I read multiple tafasir for this article to ensure the sources say the right things, even get confused about that matter. It seems like everyone knows somethign about Iblis, but rarely someone knows all aspects. Maybe there is still something important missing,a lthough I thought, after adding ht "Iblis as cosmic web" section, I covered all notable view points (except the Ismailis for reasons explained aove).

Nonetheless, I thank you for your time and dedication. You are doing a great job and I am glad to have you on Wikipedia. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle The source "Brend, Barbara. "Figurative Art in Medieval Islam and the Riddle of Bihzād of Herāt (1465–1535)." gives page numbers in the 200s when the source [1] is only 5 pages. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link you showed is not the source. It is a review about the source. The original source is over 400 pages long. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I originally thought this however your citations all have the name "Barbara Brend" who wrote the review, and the citations all have the journal/issue/volume that match up with the review. A book citation wouldn't have a journal in it. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abo Yemen Hey, I was wondering if you could explain exactly what you need second opinions on so I can help wrap this up. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense I couldn't complete the review (esp the 1 ab, 2 abc, and 3 ab parts of it) but I didn't want to fail this as it is my fault as I'm not experienced enough 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abo Yemen would you be willing to work on this review with me? What I mean by this is you point out what is making you unsure and we work together to evaluate this? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please I'd love to do that 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response, but lets start with criteria 2, I usually start with making sure there is no unsourced areas, in this case there is: Surah al-Kahf states in reference to Iblis: and al-Māturīdī among others: Iblis, being blind to the hidden reality of Adam, refuses to bow due to his own spiritual ignorance. Tabari and al-Thaʿlabi explain that the angels feared that humanity will become as corrupt as the jinn. He concludes that "this is hollow clay", whereas Iblis is "fire". Since fire overcomes clay, he vows to destroy Adam like fire destroys clay: and Lucifer reveals his backstory in the fourth episode, declaring: all appear to be unsourced. @Abo Yemen have you done a source spot check? That would be my next step, I do see that this article uses plaintext citations which can make this harder, but for source spot checks, I usually check any sources that are referanced a lot and then move on to random checks (usually about every 8th source) if I notice that all the sources are good I might check a little less. Is this something you could do? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "unsourced"? The source is right next to the end of the claim? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the things I highlighted here are not cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose) as per the GA criteria. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will check out the exact citation when I am back at the libary. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find how exactly the proper way how to add inline citations in case of blockquotes. I added them know how I remember it was probably done in the past. My memory may betray me, and feel free to correct me. But as far as I remember, the itation was not added before the ':', but at the end of the blockquote. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think either is fine. I tries to only mention times where there was no citation in the blockquote or after the colon but I may have mixed things up a bit there. Whoever of them were to say, "I am a god besides Him" and Tabari and al-Thaʿlabi explain that the angels feared that humanity will become as corrupt as the jinn. appear to be the only ones remaining as far as unsourced claims. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for pointing it out. I tend to skip citations a few sentences if they are covered directly by the previous or succeeding sentence. But I think I fixed all of them now. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would hold off on the source spot check for now, I'm going to try to clean up the citations a bit to make it easier for you to do the spot check. Instead focus on assesing the sources themselves. For example, make sure that any books sourced have page numbers, and that they are using reliable sources. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed op the sources so feel free to do a source spot check whenever. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @IntentionallyDense (sorry for the late reply). Looks like everything here is cited now (credits to your check ofc), what should I do now? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 00:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abo Yemen The next step here would be a source spot check. Lots of people do this differently however usually I start by looking for sources that were used more than others (such as ref 4,5,14,16,20,22,39,50, and 77). Once I've done that I will take a quick glance at the article for any potentially controversial statements that may require higher levels of sourcing or that should be double checked. This isn't always a necessary step but if you're questioning a source for a piece of information you can let me know and I'll do my best to help. Examples of statements that would need more strict sourcing guidelines would include controversial statements (such as is an article just claimed "God isn't real" there would need to be an incredible amount of reliable sources to back that up) or scientific/biomedical information (which I don't think will be an issue here). If that doesn't find any issues then usually I would say the source check is complete. If you do find issues or want to make sure you are being extra thorough, you can randomly pick some sources to check as well. If you can't access a source used, I may be able to help as I have access to WP:TWL. Otherwise just move onto the next source you can access. If you're unable to verify information or are confused where something comes from, I often ask the nominator to copy and paste a bit of the source so I can find it easier. Often I will just say "I checked the following sources (then link them) and found xyz/no issues". IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the detailed explanation. I'll get on it now 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 00:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle source number 20 (this one) is used 15 times in different sections but no page numbers are provided 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 00:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

same thing with 39 and 50 (which I can't access) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 00:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that not all sources require page numbers per GAC (i may have personally mislead you here a bit so apologies for that). Personally my threshold is if I have to spend more than 5 minutes per source finding this information or it is in a book, I will then request page numbers be listed for variability reasons. That being said, I don't think source 20 requires page numbers, 39 does have page numbers (Idel and Moshe, pp 98-99), as for source 50, I believe that 246 is the page but I have raised other issues with this source above. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to adress, that I have fixed source 50 by now. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

aha, no probs. Ill continue with this tomorrow since it's 4:44 am here and i need some sleep 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 01:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done checked some of the sources that I can access and it looks good 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! are you confident enough to say that the article passes GAC 3? If so then we can move onto assessing criteria 1 IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yessir, let's move on (btw did you mean GAC 2?) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 21:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did (oops). For the MOS stuff the main stuff I look for is:

• The lead summarizing important parts in a clear and concise way (meaning you should be able to understand the language used in the lead), and that it establishes notability.
• Length of sections and paragraphs. Ideally there should be no or minimal single paragraph sections/subsections and no single sentence paragraphs.
• WP:WTW is a bit harder. But in general if you think something sounds unencyclopedic see if it fits into the categories under WP:WTW
• There's no lists here so we don't have to worry about that.

Does that all sound manageable? I can take a second look after you do, as I know the MOS stuff is a lot to remember at once and I personally struggle with it. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start with this in a bit tho I want to do the first part related to WP:TECHNICAL as it would be hard for me to notice stuff that readers new to the topic might not understand 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can also help with this as I am completely new to this topic. In general, focus on the lead for technical info. The body of the article will sometimes have to be somewhat more technical depending on the content matter. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Cosmic veil" section has a single sentence paragraph (last one) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:PARAGRAPH it is not prohibited to use them sparingly. Here it makes sense, as it adds to the historical interactions between Islam and Indian religions. At the same time, it does not fit into the other two paragraphs, but a paragraph should be centered around an idea or topic as per WP:PARAGRAPH. However, there is not much more to add to this, so I think it is fine. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and the lead section has nothing on the cultural impact of iblis 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle tagging since I know this page has gotten quite lengthy. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent contributations to your review. Unfortunately, I felt ill for a few days. Additionally, I I have some important appointments in the next week and will have to prepare accordingly. I must request patience and delay for further responses on my behalf. I apologize for that, but for the next week, I am unlikely to answer to the inquiries, but I want to deal with them if I fin d time inbetween. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the lack of cultural impact.

I think

The idea that Iblis is not evil but a necessity for the world is also used in Muslim literature. Others have strongly rejected sympathies with Iblis, considering it a form of Iblis' deception to lead people astray.

summarizes it up pretty well, as most tropes used evolve around that idea. But I may add some more details if felt necessary. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abo Yemen Do you feel that these responses have explained things enough for you to make a decision regarding 1b? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 14:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense Yep. It's much better now 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

perfect, for 1a I usually just carefully read through the article and suggest any prose improvements I could see. an important thing to remember with GAN is that the prose doesn't have to be prefect, it just has to be understandable. Meaning if you can understand what the person is trying to say, even if it isn't conveyed perfectly, it's up to you whether or not you want to suggest improvements. I usually try to kill 2 (or 3) birds with one stone when it comes to this part and I'll also look for lack of information (for example if you read something that leaves you with questions like "xyz died in 1978" would leave me questioning why the person died), too much information (such as "xyz died on the afternoon of 3 March 2000 due to natural causes, just like her father and grandfather" where listing the causes of death for family members would be unneeded as it does not add to our understanding of the topic). and neutrality, with this one I usually just look for opinions that are falsely stated as facts and facts that are falsely stated as opinions as those tend to be the main culprits when it comes to WP:NPOV other things to look out for are undue weight to minority opinions and judgmental language. I know thats a lot to focus on at once but I find it easier to break it down by section and assess each section for these 4 criteria as I go. That way I don't have to read through the article 4 times for each criteria. Best of luck, the hard part of the review is over! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 14:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]