Wikipedia:Peer review/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive3

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to bring it up to featured status. It has already had one fairly comprehensive PR, but I think it still needs some outside eyes. I am specifically interested in the reviewer's opinion of the proportionality of coverage. Are the various background issues covered in their due share? Too much, too little? Is there too much detail, or too little in the article. I fear that I have worked on it for too long to have a fair idea of what an outside reader would like to see covered.

Thanks, Peregrine981 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented re the section on Islamic aniconism at the talk page - Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Islamic_tradition_-_Aniconism_section. Johnbod (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've now reworked the aniconism section in response to Johnbod's comments. Thanks for the input! Peregrine981 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]