This article has an interesting idea. It has provided many informative sections demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. However, ambiguity exists in different parts of the article, mainly in failing to specify the study's main aim.
First, the title and abstract do not appropriately reflect the article's overall aim. There is also a lack of focus (i.e. scope) and central argument. The theoretical background and supported data presented at the beginning are quite long and contain some irrelevant sections.
Second, as it seems from the abstract, the three approaches: a traditional Mosque, a Partly deviated Mosque, and a deviated Mosque, are central in this article, yet they have been given little attention in the end. Notably, the link between Islam and mosque phobia in influencing the reshaping of mosque architecture is not clear. Why is this idea not included under the factors that have influenced designing Mosques in Europe, if applicable?
Third, the classification of these three approaches should be supported by literature or sufficient theoretical understanding.
The examples provided in this section are insufficient to support the claim and lack a timeline of the construction years of mosques for more clarity. Examples must be representative (i.e. from different European countries) and sufficient (i.e. in reasonable numbers) to support the argument provided in this article.
Generally, this article is well structured and carries an interesting idea that could be developed further and supported by a conceptual framework to link different stages of the study. Also, the author could use tables, matrices and/or criteria to better present and summaries key concepts.
Approved
This article has an interesting idea. It has provided many informative sections demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. However, ambiguity exists in different parts of the article, mainly in failing to specify the study's main aim.
First, the title and abstract do not appropriately reflect the article's overall aim. There is also a lack of focus (i.e. scope) and central argument. The theoretical background and supported data presented at the beginning are quite long and contain some irrelevant sections.
Second, as it seems from the abstract, the three approaches: a traditional Mosque, a Partly deviated Mosque, and a deviated Mosque, are central in this article, yet they have been given little attention in the end. Notably, the link between Islam and mosque phobia in influencing the reshaping of mosque architecture is not clear. Why is this idea not included under the factors that have influenced designing Mosques in Europe, if applicable?
Third, the classification of these three approaches should be supported by literature or sufficient theoretical understanding.
The examples provided in this section are insufficient to support the claim and lack a timeline of the construction years of mosques for more clarity. Examples must be representative (i.e. from different European countries) and sufficient (i.e. in reasonable numbers) to support the argument provided in this article.
Generally, this article is well structured and carries an interesting idea that could be developed further and supported by a conceptual framework to link different stages of the study. Also, the author could use tables, matrices and/or criteria to better present and summaries key concepts.