Talk:DOBAG Carpet Initiative/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Copy changes

The copy is actually okay. Some suggestions for general improvement:

• Remove comma after "antique woven carpets"
• Remove comma after "cheap and easy to use"
• "having a hard, metallic look," and being, "dull and dead" → remove the second and third commas
• Remove comma after "in 1953"
• Remove comma after "from plants"
• Capitalize "Traditional" in Marmara University Department of traditional Handicraft and Design

References

There are not enough references, and some references are begging for additional information.

Some paragraphs need additional citations in their last sentences. There is one completely uncited paragraph.

References 13 through 17 are to entire websites, not specific pages. It seems the intent was to have footnotes that were more appropriate for external links. These are not references and should be in an external links section.

Images

All of the images are appropriately licensed. There might be one or two too many for the page layout. The Islamic Gallery photo may be best used as a photo opposite the lede, to show an example of the project's own work.

Other notes

• There are no copyvio concerns.
• The article is stable, almost too much so; the nominator made various grammar changes and then published the page.

This article generally feels underdeveloped for a GA, and I am worried that the nominator had little to do with any of its writing. HajjiBaba wrote more than 90 percent of the total prose on this page and seems to be a topic expert. The recommendations on the page will at least fix some of its larger structural issues, though I am doubtful a GA can be had. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)