Wikipedia:Peer review/Middle East/archive1

Middle East[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have as of late become interested in the Middle East, and would like to know where the article could be improved.

Thanks, Master&Expert (Talk) 09:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aude - I've made a bit of contributions to the article, some time ago, but holding off for now as I know it's a significant time investment to bring it up to FA quality. Getting it to GA quality seems feasible in the short term.

The key thing with a topic like this is that so much has been written about the Middle East. Thus, I really doubt that several of the websites used as sources are really the best sources available, for example, this European Jewish Congress webpage [1], the Progressive Policy Institute [2]. I would argue that the CIA Factbook [3] is also insufficient as a source. Maybe it would work for general facts/statistics like population, but it's definitely not suitable where it gives a historical or economic overview, since much better sources are available. The article cites a number of books and scholarly journal articles, which is good, and the article needs more of that. Though care is needed, since there is garbage out there in book form too. Books published through reputable publishers would be good.

The other thing is that the Middle East article needs to be a summary of the various subarticles, per WP:SUMMARY, and if the subarticles are a mess or poor quality, than I don't think summary style can be followed very well. I suggest looking at the subarticles, such as History of the Middle East, and also work to improve those at the same time the History section of the main Middle East article is improved.

A general comment is that I think there are too many pictures, in relation the amount of text. I would get rid of a bunch of them and take the gallery out. --Aude (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Do you know of any particularly reliable scholarly books? Master&Expert (Talk) 16:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For suggesting something specific, Juan Cole has a short list [4], including Albert Hourani's A History of the Arab Peoples and Jonathan Berkey's The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800. That our article on the Middle East does not cite Hourani's book is definitely a problem. Certainly the Middle East article is one of the most important on Wikipedia, so it would be good to see improvement.

On specific countries, detailed bibliographies are available from the Library of Congress, as part of their Country Studies series (e.g. Egypt). The Middle East Institute has detailed bibliographies on some countries (e.g. Iraq, Algeria, Pakistan ...) and topics such as Islamism [5], but I don't see anything that's a general overview/list for the "Middle East". But, within those lists, I think there are some items listed that are more general.

The other thing I would do to find scholarly sources is look around on the Internet for course syllabus from universities known for strong programs in Middle East studies, and see what they are having students read. For example, this from the University of Michigan, though what that lists seems again to pertain to specific countries. Also, some universities (e.g. their libraries, or individual professors) have posted lists of references. (e.g. Cornell [6] or U. Michigan [7]). --Aude (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- On that related note, I removed several images from the article recently, as per one of your suggestions.[8] Master&Expert (Talk) 18:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much improved. Once the article is expanded, of course, some images can be re-added. --Aude (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why of course. This could take awhile... (check the history and you'll see an even bigger obstacle than the disarray the article's in - but such is to be expected of such a topic.) Master&Expert (Talk) 20:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the recent reverts. Aside from that, the article has been remarkably stable. I think getting the article more solidly sourced with the highest quality sources helps keep articles stable. The issue of concern now is what's the definition of the Middle East. Of course, there is no single definition. I suggest maybe reordering the sections and move the "Territories and regions" section up so it follows the "Etymology" section. And, the "Territories and regions" needs some explanation more than just providing the table. The problem is that the Regions of the Middle East subarticle is a stub, completely unreferenced, and I think totally unhelpful. Getting that subarticle into decent shape might be a good starting point. Along with improving the subarticle, a brief well-sourced, summary can be added to the main Middle East article. Once the article explains what the Middle East is, then it makes sense to go on to talk about history, geography, economy, etc. --Aude (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally define the Middle East as a region in Southwestern Asia and Northeastern Africa, south of the Caucasus Mountains and west of the Indian subcontinent. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently paid a visit to the local library in search Hourini's book - I couldn't find it, unfortunately. I did, however, manage to order a book known as "A History of Islamic Societies", which I feel will cover the subject in some amount of depth, at least to fill a few sections. (as a side note, though, I did manage to find myself a book on Irish history :D ) Master&Expert (Talk) 22:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This Is the book I managed to order. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That book looks very good. I do have Hourani's book, and should offer more help for the Middle East and related articles. But there is only so much time for Wikipedia, so don't know how much I can quickly do. Being such a broad topic, I think an article like this needs a few users helping. --Aude (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm, yes, it most certainly does. But, how to do we bring them to the Middle East? Master&Expert (Talk) 01:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - A number of other users have been discussing things on Talk:Middle East, but not sure how much they can/want to help. At some point, I suggest getting input on the history section from WP:MILHIST (they have task forces for specific regions), and there are other wikiprojects that are relevant (e.g. Category:WikiProject_Middle_East, Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world, WP:ISLAM). And, while it helps to have a few users helping, having too many can cause difficulties. --Aude (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I notified 2 users - User:FayssalF (Arab World Wikiproject) and User:Jagged 85 (military history, Middle East branch). Master&Expert (Talk) 03:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That sounds good. I do think the history section needs a great deal of improvement, and any input or guidance would help. For example, it does not mention the Crusades and just gives passing mention to the rise of Islam, and a brief mention of the Ottoman Empire. Also, the Byzantine Empire is not mentioned. --Aude (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This could take a while. But Jagged 85 looks like he'd have a good understanding of Middle Eastern history, hopefully. In the meantime, I'll do what I can do. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]