Talk:Girih/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 09:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

GA criteria

Well-written:

Reading this article over again, I think it flows much better than it did at the start of this review, and having made the odd grammatical tweak here and there I feel it also satisfies MOS policies for grammar. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses a decent quantity of reputable sources, and makes regular citations to them. Nothing seems ill-verified/OR. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

As Silktork pointed out below, there's a relative degree of subjectivity towards this aspect of the reviewer's judgement, but I'm walking out of this latest reading feeling like I have a pretty good understanding of girih and its practice and history, so I think the most standard aspects have been adequately covered. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article maintains a neutral voice, throughout. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article has not suffered from edit warring or similarly disruptive behaviors since at least April 2015. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

All images used in the article are freely licensed, and serve relevant purposes as providers of illustrative context. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Reviewer comments

I think I may need a second opinion on the matters of layout/arrangement, and also the matter of wording. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

(Nom) - I'm very willing to adjust layout and wording anywhere that's necessary, if you'll let me know your concerns. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; anyway that's what I want a second opinion for. I'm not sure if there's anything to be concerned about or not, and I'm frankly not used to that. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will - No problem, but it's a bit difficult to action, which is the usual response to reviewer concerns. I've given the arrangement a polish, perhaps that will help – take another look and see if it's better, and if there's anything else you'd like adjusted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a bit. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will, we have at last had a second opinion, and a very helpful one. I have reworked the article along the lines SilkTork suggested, and I hope you'll agree the article is both clearer and fuller as a result. I'm very willing to make further changes if any are needed but we must be very close to meeting the GA criteria now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by SilkTork

I'll take a quick look. SilkTork (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Areas needing checking are 1) Well written a) Prose and b) MoS 3) Broad coverage a) main aspects and b) focus

To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. I note that there is no history or construction in the lead, which currently mainly consists of a definition/description of the topic.

Rewritten lead to reflect article contents, per MoS.

Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. I searched for some words from the lead - "faience", "banna'i", "muqarnas", "squinches", "tapestry" and they do not appear in the main body.

Removed, they are tangential to the article.

Also under 1 (b) is MOS:LAYOUT which gives guidance on section lengths: " Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." This article does have very short sections.

Merged short sections (History now has only 2).

Also in Layout is guidance on placement of images - MOS:LAYIM - which guides against placing too many images in a section, and against having images squeezing into following sections. That does happen in this article.

Images reformatted to take less space, and to be grouped one per section. This certainly looks more coherent in style, and I hope is more readable.

To meet GA criteria 1 (a) the prose should be clear. The prose in the lead is quite dense/rich, and contains MOS:JARGON, making some sentences difficult to read. It is also not clear why "gereh sazi patterns were seen" while "symmetric shapes are used".

Jargon and past tense removed in rewrite.

In respect of the above I would recommend a full rewrite of the lead, and a brisk copy-edit of the whole article to ensure clarity and ease of understanding. In addition, some merging of short sections, or adding of additional appropriate information in order to fill out those short sections. And consideration to how to present the images in the article. There does appear to be rather a lot of images in comparison to text - and I note that some images carry extensive captions which is advised against in WP:Captions (though I suspect the captions may be appropriate in these instances); as such consideration could be given to easing the weight of images in the article, or to creating an explanatory gallery per WP:IG, which gives 1750–75 in Western fashion as an example of an effective use of a gallery.

1) As already stated, have rewritten the lead.

2) Have copy-edited the whole article.

3) Have cut down number of images (only 1 in History).

4) Have formatted remaining images to 1 group per section - each group tells exactly one story.

5) Have trimmed all captions as far as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

To meet GA criteria 3 (a) is often a debatable point. The demands of broad coverage are not the same as the comprehensive cover required of Featured articles, and can be thought of as those items the general reader might expect to want to know about, or might have read about elsewhere, and was coming to Wikipedia to check. I did a search for "Girih", and read a couple of articles, then looked to see if some of the main points of those articles were mentioned here. I looked for "Penrose tiling" and found it, however, some of the detail found in The Arts of Ornamental Geometry A Persian Compendium on Similar and Complementary Interlocking Figures I don't find in here. I think to pin down broad coverage exactly can take a bit of research and discussion between reviewer and nominator.

Yes, it's hard to know where to stop. I've added the ref and used its mention of templates, a simple but helpful point surely worth adding.

My feeling is that the article is probably borderline, and it's going to come down to a discussion between reviewer and nominator, and then the personal judgement of the reviewer.

I have improved the article on all points mentioned. If further improvements are needed I shall gladly make them, but I think we now clearly meet the criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

To meet GA criteria 3 (b) the article should not be disproportionate on any one aspect, and the article as a whole should not be too long or unnecessarily detailed. I'm not seeing any issues on that regard as the article is not long, and there are no sections or aspects which are unbalanced in coverage or overly long.

Noted, thank you.

In conclusion I think there are some concerns regarding criteria 1) and 3), though these can be addressed with a bit of editing. SilkTork (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, that is very helpful. I have actioned all your suggestions and hope the article can be seen to be both richer and clearer for the changes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Silktork, and thanks for the updates, Chiswick. After having gone over the revised article, I think I've reached a conclusion. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comment

The Gallery section violates WP:IG as an indiscriminate gallery. Without a more descriptive heading, or any captions to begin with, it lacks a coherent theme. If all it does is try to shoehorn further images of girih in the article, it should be removed; that's what Commons is for. – Finnusertop (talk⋅ contribs) 16:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, I've added explanatory captions. The images were chosen one for each kind of material (stone, plaster, metal, wood). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

That's so much better now, Chiswick Chap. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Summary

I believe, with all the work and toil that everyone's put into this, the article now meets the GA criteria. I say congratulations, and I apologize for the long wait, but I hope it was worth it. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)