Talk:Qala'un Mosque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Wikipedian removed Qala'un Mosque from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}

	Egypt Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Is this really a stub? The article would benefit from a picture, as many articles would, but it seems to be perfectly adequate textually. Agentsoo 17:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess you are right. — mark ✎ 17:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed it. — mark ✎ 10:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that Enclopaedia Britannica's article with the title Qala'un Mosque is completely misleading as pointed out here. — mark ✎ 10:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA because

This article can use a lot more work. It needs more thoroughness, such as the exact use of the mosque (besides just praying). It is not well-written and needs much more copyediting; just compare this with any other Wikipedia:Good articles. Surely pictures can be included. The entire article is just a description of the mosque; it needs to be better written then that. AndyZ 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There was I thinking that articles should be 'just descriptions', but apparently I was wrong. Not being a native speaker, I can't really judge the quality of the English, but I hope someone will come along to do a good copyedit. — mark ✎ 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)