Talk:Islamic geometric patterns/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) 13:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Planning to review this article. But its quite long and detailed. Will do minor corrections myself while reading through and come back here with comments. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

General

 * WP:ALT missing on all image
 * OK, I've done this for you but it's not a GA requirement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * All images are from Commons and properly licensed
 * Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * But images are not presented in uniform sizes. That disturbs the prose around it. You may fix the size for all these images giving the prose some sort of alignment.
 * The lead images, and the Shah Nematollah dome image (alone in a large section of text, showing fine detail) are a little larger; default image sizes (upright or landscape) are used throughout, except that the Artform images are uniformly a little smaller to avoid leaving whitespace between subsections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done by me. I added |180px to all images. Revert back if you disagree.
 * I don't see the improvement using 180px (that actually enlarges some images). The article looks tidy without it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay whatever!


 * Disambiguation check: Warp should be properly wikilinked.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Ref 13. van den Hoeven, Saskia, van der Veen, Maartje. "Muqarnas-Mathematics in Islamic Arts" is a dead link. Needs to be replaced.
 * Archive URL added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * No copyvio problems from Earwig's tool
 * Noted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * All books, except Hankin, listed in "Sources" aren't used. Why list them then?
 * Moved Broug x2 and Hankin to inline refs. Moved the rest to "Further reading". There is much more to be said around the edges of this topic than can be stated in an introductory article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Hankin is used in in-line references (ref 3) and its repeated in "Sources" also. So please remove that.
 * Done as above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Surfing on mobile I noticed that the Template:Efn used for Notes also gives number 1,2,3 to these notes; just like how references do. While on the PC I can see them as a,b,c. Is this some error of the template or maybe with mobile version of our site? Can this be rectified by using some other template? I have been using Template:Ref so far in articles I have written. But I just noticed that this Ref one is worse than the Efn one. I will also have to look into this. This won't however stop the GA process.
 * Noted. I've never seen this, so I guess it's a bug in a particular mobile app. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Another non-GA-hindering point is archiving of online references.
 * Noted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Use Template:Sfn for ref 4 of Brough, 2008.
 * Moved inline as above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Fix ref 12. Also if subscription is required for some references like jstor, that needs to be mentioned. (Typical comment for others too. Please check.)
 * Done both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * No url for ref 47?
 * Added Sarhangi url. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.

Content

 * "A similar design forms the logo of the Mohammed Ali Research Center, its construction demonstrated in an animation." ---> What animation? Where is it? If the video is available in the article only then it makes sense to mention it.
 * It's in the cited source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't make sense to mention it here that an animation is available in the source.
 * Removed from text.Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * What are p4mm, c2mm, p6mm, p2mm and p4gm? Is it quite common lingo that readers would understand?
 * These are the names of the wallpaper groups; the paragraph is stated to be mathematical. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * We do want to use best images which help in understanding of the topic clearly. But we have all images over here which are of artworks that are actually ancient. Also the text majorly emphasises history of the art form and it hence gives impression that this all is extinct-types and only museum-worthy. But in reality this is a live art form and maybe choosing some modern images would help. Present day images of kilim and jali might be easy to find.
 * This is to an extent a matter of taste; however, scholars agree that Islamic art is at best harder to find today, as explained for instance in the Islamic embroidery article. It seems more than reasonable to choose the finest examples in an introductory article, just as an introductory book or museum exhibition does.Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Still, it looks like we are giving undue coverage to the best works. Arts that is not critically covered but more evident in daily life should find place somewhere in the article. As said, jail and kilim would be good examples to show current non-historic art. Same with stained glass now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the article is just illustrated with one example of each type, and of course we choose a good example. I have however added a paragraph based on Thompson 1988 explaining why modern kilim have lost their tribal character, and given a brief description of modern jali (there are no images of such on Commons). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. The Haj House (Mumbai) would be a good example of modern usage of jail. But we don't have images of it as of now on Commons. Will go and snap it some day and then we can see if it can be included. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Any idea why subsections of "Artforms" are arranged in that order? They aren't alphabetic or in some sort of chronology.
 * Sorted alphabetically. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Isn't work on glass of any prominence to mention in geometric patterns?
 * Islamic glass does not appear to make significant use of geometric patterns.Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No! I didn't mean glass-work but more like stained glass art involving Islamic geometrics. Maybe what you say is true for stained glass true. But just wanted to check. But stained glass work is not rare in Islamic architecture.
 * Added Shabaka (window) to the list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Shabaka is just one example of a window patter in one place of the world. The newly added prose doesn't cover generic stained glass works elsewhere. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've extended the section, now renamed 'Stained glass'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Islamic influences on Western art is a good topic. Some examples of "Islamic geometric patterns" seen in non-Islamic religions should be mentioned in prose as well as picture. Not a quick fix point but maybe you will have to work a bit more on this.
 * I agree that the Islamic influences article is the right place for such things. Western usage quickly debases the strict geometry of Islamic art. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * "Beliefs" and " Inspiration for art" are quite small sections. Needs to be merge and moved elsewhere. Also, dedicating a whole subsection for just M. C. Escher seems bit undue. Aren't there any other western/far-eastern artists inspired by this topic to mention here?
 * These sections (like those below) are certainly correctly placed in the "In Western culture" section. I have demoted them all to paragraphs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * "Events and courses" focuses on just two events and one course and both events are of recentism type. Also, such art forms are less a topic of university based courses and more practised and produced in family lines or remote workshops. This is going unmentioned in the article.
 * Removed the subheadings. It seems quite reasonable to indicate the type of activity practised in the West in this area; I have generalised the text slightly. The (very slight) recentism is probably inevitable; perhaps this is a useful counterweight to the anti-recentism you also found in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Why mention Eva Baer's name specifically? Is she someone notable enough in the field. If so, she should be introduced in the prose. If not, her book can be treated in same way as other references are used without mentioning the authors in prose.
 * She's an expert in the field. Added a footnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.

• 1a - Done
 * The six good article criteria checks:

• 1b - Done

• 2a - Done

• 2b - Done

• 2c - Done

• 2d - Done

• 3a - Done

• 3b - Done

• 4 - Done

• 5 - Done

• : 6a - Done

• : 6b - Done The article is well written and good job. It was great reading it all. There are some points not completed and noted in GA review above. But they are not going to hinder the GA as they are not compulsory by GA criteria but more like to-dos if this goes to FA. Congratulations for the new GA!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the careful review, which has improved the article. Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)