# Talk:Idries Shah

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Idries Shah. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=001301712421770&rtmo=qMuJX999&atmo=99999999&pg=%2Fet%2F96%2F12%2F7%2Febshah07.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.i-c-r.org.uk/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130724030211/http://www.gurdjieff-legacy.org/40articles/neosufism.htm to http://www.gurdjieff-legacy.org/40articles/neosufism.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725095512/http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C25336-1947980%2C00.html to http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C25336-1947980%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051015023705/http://www.idriesshah.info/Shah/IdriesShah.htm to http://www.idriesshah.info/Shah/IdriesShah.htm
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) 01:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Idries Shah. 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://dl.dropbox.com/u/25116143/docs/DeclarationOfThePeople.pdf
Fixed (public folder in free dropbox a/cs have now been made private). Public link to pdf provided. Esowteric+Talk 13:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004064521/http://www.ishkbooks.com/ishk_leadership.html to http://ishkbooks.com/ishk_leadership.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402140546/http://www.bennettbooks.org/store/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=BB&Product_Code=CDPT2-BL&Category_Code=110 to http://www.bennettbooks.org/store/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=BB&Product_Code=CDPT2-BL&Category_Code=110
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918192234/http://ishk.net/sufis/index.html to http://ishk.net/sufis/index.html
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) 13:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this very subjective label actually qualified by any sources, or has it been subjectively added? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. Have changed that, thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This article become a good article in 2009 - do we think this still holds by present standards? This is worth a little discussion before any formal GA review is warranted, but a couple of obvious things that I see now and which I think would present barriers to this article becoming a GA today are some structural issues, including long contents + long paragraphs, and a lack of images. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I don't see any issue with the length of the content, since Shah had such a prolific life; nor do I see any over-lengthy paragraphs. I know little about getting an aricle to GA status, though.
I've fixed the red warnings in book citations (where author was used for an editor with "(ed.)" or "(eds.)" after the name).
One issue that you might face in going through a GA is that there are not so many people still familiar with Shah's life and his work, and only a few of them are still active Wikipedians. Jayen466 (talk · contribs) did a lot of good work developing and maintaining the article. Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
For want of some specifics, there are currently just 4 images in this article, which is roughly one every 2,600 words - so that's one image per undergraduate essay length wall of text. As for paragraph lengths, the worst examples come in the 'assessment' section, where the longest example, beginning: "And Shah's fiercest critic ... ", alone extends to 300 words. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I've mellowed since I posted the above, as well as come to the realization that there are so many things that need improving that ripping down slightly off GAs is a bit of a waste of community time, as well as the rather specifically limited GA review capacity. Better to perform some quick fixes and just keep aged GAs at something close enough to passable. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)