Talk:Venetian glass/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Tim - thank you for reviewing this article. I cannot think how I've missed this fine article when looking in at GAN on previous occasions. I have struggled to find anything to quibble about. These are my meagre gleanings:

• I don't think I have ever seen another article that gave both ISBNs and OCLC numbers for each cited book, but there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't if you want to.

Sometimes I find a book that has only one of the two numbers, so I always try to put everything I can in. TwoScars (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• There are too many links to countries and even continents (I mean, "Europe"!) If I were you I should think carefully about the links to navy, ivory, silk, glass (hello!), Africa, New World, English, lead, copper, tin and iron.

I agree! Unlinked Europe, North Africa, Middle East, navy, precious metal, gemstone, ivory, silk, and glass. Added a See also under Making glass that leads to Glass coloring and color marking, then unlinked lead, tin, cobalt, copper and iron.

The Egypt link goes to Egypt in the Middle Ages—I left it in. Manganese links to Coloring ions (manganese is 3rd bullet) in Glass coloring and color marking. It is not under the new See also, so I left it in. Soda links to sodium oxide, so I left that in. Lime links to calcium oxide so I left that in. TwoScars (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

All absolutely fine. Tim riley talk 19:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• You have duplicate links to Murano beads.

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• "A November 8, 1291, law" – the second comma is a bit unexpected.

The Punctuation Guide says "When the date appears in the middle of a sentence, commas should appear both before and after the year. Her arrival on April 10, 1988, was considered a turning point for the company. When a date is used as an adjective, most authorities require a comma following the year." Changed from "A November 8, 1291, law ordered most of Venice's glassmaking industry to be...." to "A law, dated November 8, 1291, ordered most of Venice's glassmaking industry to be...." I have no problem rewording it again if it still seems awkward, and I have no problem dropping the second comma either if needed. TwoScars (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Up to you, but it looks damn' silly to me. Not a matter to get too worried about, though. Tim riley talk 19:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• "It took about an hour to row a boat from Venice to Murano" – I was surprised at this. You can almost spit from the Fondamente Nove to Murano, but if your source says it took about an hour, so be it.

The source (page 50) says: "The island was only an hour's row from Venice, and the lagoon between was studded on warm nights with gondolas going to and fro." However, we both know that sources can be wrong. I currently have been unable to find a book that talks about the rowing time in the 1200s other than Zerwick. If you think we should (and can "get away" with it) say "up to an hour" instead of "about an hour", since starting points can vary, I'm open to that. Otherwise, if one of us stumbles across a better source, even months or years from now, it can be changed then. Another alternative is to simply drop the sentence. TwoScars (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

And that really is all I find to be pernickety about. If you address these few points we can proceed to the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Over to you. Tim riley talk 12:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You have been to Venice and Murano, and I have too. If there is anything that you think this article is missing, let's try to add it now. TwoScars (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Alas, though I know Venice tolerably well I know next to nothing about its glass (only ever set foot on Murano twice). All I can do, and with much pleasure, is to promote this admirable article to GA. It seems to me to have the potential to be taken on to peer review and FAC, but for now:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I hope to see this article again on its way to higher things. Meanwhile, bravo! – Tim riley talk 19:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)