Talk:Muslim women in sport

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rjpg12. Peer reviewers: Sa49, Brittany Lai.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi Rebecca,

First off, awesome work on the article so far. Considering this is a new article, a lot of progress has already been made in terms of content, images, sources, and organization. Your article is easy to read and quite comprehensive-- your usage of a wide variety of sources throughout each section gives a very succinct overview. I especially like your Amateur sports section; its content is highly relevant, and the delivery of it is executed perfectly in terms of neutrality and cohesiveness. Furthermore, I really like the images you chose and they help to add flare to the article as well as provide relevant supplementary material to the content. However, two things I believe you could work on are improving neutrality and your lead section. There are several sweeping, bias statements made throughout the article. While you do follow up the statements with studies and scholarly sources from journals, I believe many of the sweeping statements could be better worded or left out in order to maintain neutrality. The pattern of maintaining neutrality should be carried out in your lead section as well, especially the 1st sentence. While your lead section so far is a pretty good summary, I believe more objective statistics or facts could be added about different sports to draw away from its heavy sociological overtone right now. Overall, your article looks great so far and I can't wait to see the final product! Brittany Lai (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Rebecca,

I love your contributions so far! You've improved your lead section tremendously and cleaned up a lot of the issues with neutrality. Your structure and organization is very concise and logical. Furthermore, you did a great job with writing the article, and transition words are utilized quite nicely to make each section and sentence flow together seamlessly. The additional information you have included in this recent round of contributions greatly improve the comprehensiveness of the article and have been skillfully incorporated. My main suggestions moving forward are to continue watching out to remain neutral throughout the article, as well as add a few more sentences to the lead section. Also, if you have to stumble across any, statistics would be an awesome addition to the article.

Good luck! Brittany Lai (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi Rebecca! This initial contribution is a great start to this new article that fills a gap in Wikipedia. So far, the initial contribution does a great job in covering the major aspects of Muslim women in sport. In particular, I enjoyed reading the “Empowerment through sports” section as it adds a broader context to the role sports can play in and individual’s life as well as at the societal level. This section also is articulated in a concise yet illustrative manner that works well as the last section. Given these strong points to your article, I do think, however, there is room to improve particularly in terms on structure and definitions of the word hijab. The most important improvement to make is to take the portion about FIFA under the ¨Religious¨ section and move it to the “Structure” section. In addition, there were other areas that related more to “Structure” than the section they were in. You may consider splitting this section further to facilitate readability. Lastly, the definition of hijab is broad as it means “to cover” in Arabic and can also be applied to men. If you are going to limit it to refer to the headscarf, which is fine, you should note this somewhere in the article. In general, fantastic job and interesting topic! Excited to read the end product. Sa49 (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Rebecca, I think the reorganization of this article from your initial contribution is fantastic. The article is now organized in a logical manner and all material under each of the sections fits well. In particular, I really like rewritten lead section. The first sentence establishes the presence of Muslim women in sport not being a modern concept, but rather existing since the inception of Islam. Given this newly written lead section, I do think, however, there is room to improve it in terms of adding blue links specifically to the word “hijab.” Someone who stumbles upon this article and is not familiar with this Arabic word in the lead section could benefit from such a link. Lastly, the most important improvement to make is to add more references to the newly added sections. For example, there are some sentences like “Researchers have found gender differences…” under the “Cultural” section that need referencing. Overall, great job on the reorganization and newly added information. Sa49 (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Muslim women in sport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "Muslim women have been involved in sport" - should not be emboldened

   There's an improper synthesis tag in the Volleyball section

   "Other notable women's national volleyball teams from the OIC include Azerbaijan, Algeria (who were African champions in 2009 and gold medallists at the 2011 All-Africa Games), and three-times African champions Tunisia." - this needs a citation

   "Women's tennis is rapidly growing in popularity within OIC member states. As of 2016, there are Women's Tennis Association (WTA) Tour events in Malaysia (Malaysian Open, Kuala Lumpur; inaugurated 2010), Morocco (Grand Prix SAR La Princesse Lalla Meryem, Rabat; 2001), Qatar (Qatar Open, Doha; 2001), Turkey (Istanbul Cup; 2005), the United Arab Emirates (Dubai Tennis Championships; 1993), and Uzbekistan (Tashkent Open; 1999)." - I'm not sure if this needs sourcing, so feel free to ignore this point

   " Reporters also frequently alluded to exotic sexuality of Muslim female athletes, fetishizing both their covering and their bodies" - this is not in the source

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No original research found. AGF for offline sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yes, it is stable

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I can see that this is well researched and documented, but I did manage to find a few issues. I'll leave this on hold until all of the above are clarified. Please let me know if you found anything unclear. JAGUAR  16:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I don't understand what you mean by an improper synthesis tag - can you help me understand how to fix this? Thanks! Rjpg12 (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm looking back at the article by Sehlikoglu and Samie, and I think that the statement "Reporters also frequently alluded to exotic sexuality of Muslim female athletes, fetishizing both their covering and their bodies" is substantiated by the source. On page 374, they say "During the London 2012 Games, the veil and veiled Muslim women were frequently portrayed vis-a`-vis such Orientalist discourses of exoticism." and later "The result is a fragmented portrayal of al-Hamad’s veiled body which fetishes visible parts of her body and draws out her sex appeal: in this case her “dark eyes,”soft voice and petite body frame." Do you agree that this substantiates the statement in the Wikipedia article, or do I need to reword it? Thanks again! Rjpg12 (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them so quickly! I'm not sure what an "improper synthesis" tag is myself, but I see that you've added a citation in its place and its has thus been removed, so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. I've looked through the article again and have double checked the sources so everything seems to be in order. As a result, this article now meets the GA criteria. Well done! JAGUAR  22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reviewing this article! I appreciate it! Rjpg12 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misrepresentation of sources

Open-member clubs in secular, multicultural countries are not related to Islam. The sources don't mention Islam. This is original research and synthesis, and misrepresentation of sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.222.31.46 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

None of the sources about women's tennis mention Islam at all, and all are related to secular countries. A third of Kazakhs, for example, and many of their athletes, are Russians.

But I suppose you'll just ignore me, say "Bring it to talk" and ignore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.222.31.46 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

46.222.31.46 Please sign your comments by using four tildes, secondly you need to give editors time to respond. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

comment I am not sure what you're arguing here. That Islam has nothing to do with Muslim women? The title of the article itself is Muslim women in sport. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for the initial user, but I think the argument that he is making is that not all athletes from Muslim majority countries are themselves Muslim, and that the article as it stands makes this assumption. I'm open to correction on this observation, however. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 19:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I am OP (new address). This is synthesis because it takes two sources - that Kazakhstan is in the OIC and is a growing tennis nation - and then puts a conclusion supported by neither source. That is original research and it's not in. Consider that the last three world cups have been won by EU members. Would that be mentioned in "Pro EU sentiment and sport"? No, it's a completely independent fact Le new account (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research" Le new account (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a subtle but valid point. After looking at the article I see some of what you are referring to. Sources need to relate to the topic of the article directly. —DIY Editor (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you please clarify where you think the synthesis is happening in the volleyball section? What are the two sources you are referring to, and what is the conclusion? Thanks! Rjpg12 (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just after a quick look, Inés Boubakri in the Fencing section is cited only as Arab (and talking about Arab women) which is not WP:RS that she is Muslim. Anything in this article based solely on someone being Arab or from a predominantly Muslim country should be removed. —DIY Editor (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! I have removed that sentence. Rjpg12 (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The health and well-being section looks to have the same problem - the sources don't seem to all directly relate to female Muslims in sport. Since you created the article perhaps you can recall other circumstances where you used something as a source that was not directly related to Islam. It'd be easier than other people going back through and checking each citation to make sure that hasn't happened. —DIY Editor (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks for the input Rjpg12 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rjpg12: Well I waited a couple weeks to give you a chance to makes some edits yourself, then went ahead and removed the Health and wellbeing section. It seemed tangential to the article and vaguely like WP:OR in the sense of applying a source to a topic it doesn't address directly. —DIY Editor (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muslim women in sport. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170120103740/http://www.baku2017.com/about/about-issf to https://www.baku2017.com/about/about-issf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 21:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 9999128122t.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)