Talk:Al-Nasir Muhammad Mosque

Al-Nasir Muhammad Mosque was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated . Review: January 5, 2006. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Al-Nasir Muhammad Mosque appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 June 2005. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Qala'un Mosque was considered the most glamorous mosque in Cairo until its wooden dome collapsed in the 16th century? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2005/June.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Egypt Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Mosques Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Mosques task force.

Is this really a stub? The article would benefit from a picture, as many articles would, but it seems to be perfectly adequate textually.

I guess you are right. —

✎ 17:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Removed it. —

✎ 10:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Just one correction, the

Kitbugha in 1295 and completed by al-Nasir Muhammad in 1304. --Chapultepec (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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. —

✎ 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Nasir Muhammad Mosque. 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/20050521082611/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=3982 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=3982
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714032140/http://www.maqrizi.com/mosque_pages/m_of_the_citadel.html to http://www.maqrizi.com/mosque_pages/m_of_the_citadel.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.

• 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) 12:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just grouped some sections together in a more logical division (description vs history). The "structure" and "visual aspects" sections seem to overlap in terms of theme and information, and should probably be merged in the future.
• The "mosque today" section is currently unsourced, but it was once sourced; perhaps this can be rescued. That being said, however, the information seems misleading or subjective (even if it came from that source). e.g.: I have been to this mosque recently and other times before, and it is as frequently visited as the rest of the Citadel (which is a major sight). It's also not quite right to say that it looked essentially as it did in the 1300s: the marble paneling inside the mosque was removed long ago and only restored in one small section; maybe more nuance is needed here to describe the state of its preservation and the outcome of previous restoration efforts.

These are some initial observations; please discuss or add more. (If I have time, I will try to make some revisions myself in the future, if no one else does first.) Cheers.