# Talk:Beit Al Quran

Bahrain Wikipedians!! Please add a photo of Beit Al Qur'an if you have one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shijaz (talk • contribs) 

Because it is undoubtedly notable, but now it needs 3rd party references--articles about it, in English if possible. DGG 14:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Beit Al Quran/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
You are using travel sites and primary sources. Have you considered using books or high-quality documents?
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I feel the article should be copyedited from top to bottom
Although I only copyedited the lead, I see several issues in the sections below
The lead should summarize the content, not including any new information
With that said, the "Establishment" section does not include that it was constructed in 1984 and opened in March 1990.
It suddenly introduces "Kanoo"
"The complex comprises a mosque, a library, an auditorium, a school, and museum consisting of ten exhibition halls." - what complex? Isn't it a museum? A museum comprising "a mosque, a library, an auditorium, a school, and museum"?--Kürbis (✔) 20:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry for being a bit tardy with the edits but I've done some now. Should be alright now. --Droodkin (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Still issues with the references. Ref 5 and 7 are travel guides, and I strongly recommend you to replace these references. Travel guides always have a conflict of interest and the writers are mainly amateurs. TimeOutBahrain does not show up for some reason (perhaps also a travel guide). Aren't there any better sources? --Tomcat (7) 09:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Not a lot of sources, aside from travel guides, I'm afraid. Though, the Lonely Planet is a good enough source. The stuff is factually accurate, I've been to the museum myself. The problem is finding sources online =/ --Droodkin (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Lonely Planet is acceptable, but the Bahrain Focus references are definitely not reliable given the several prose errors. I really can not pass this article as long as you don't use high-quality, third-party sources. Have you searched for non-English sources? Also there are references, such as Ref  7, which do not support certain claims. The text states that there are 20,000 books but the source does not include this number. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've done a lot of editing and got a new source from here. A google translate will help you read it. Hoping this helps! --Droodkin (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience. Know as you removed that reference I have no other complaints.--Tomcat (7) 17:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As the article is of a museum complex of Islamic history also featuring Quran manuscripts from different periods.So i believe the template Template:Quran should be place in the article or more precisely under Museum heading. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the template is strictly for articles directly involving the Quran, such as Surahs and other intimate articles (see here). However, I doubt the template would be necessary here. --Droodkin (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmm i was recommending it because: Firstly, The template Quran itself has a link to Beit Al Quran and Secondly, as the article does not have any templates so it would be better if there is one.
I feel that both Quran and Beit Al Quran are related not directly but indirectly but if you are positive that there is no need for adding the template and it would not add any value to the article then its fine as its only my opinion. By the way happy editing and keep up with the good work. :) -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't aware that it was already included in the template. In that case, it should be a worthwhile addition then (assuming it doesn't clog up the page). Going to insert it now, thanks! --Droodkin (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to you too. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beit Al Quran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.islamicmanuscript.org/PeopleByName.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419013841/http://ddms.usim.edu.my/bitstream/handle/123456789/1923/ISLAMIC%20MANUSCRIPTS.pdf?sequence=1 to http://ddms.usim.edu.my/bitstream/handle/123456789/1923/ISLAMIC%20MANUSCRIPTS.pdf?sequence=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)