Girih has been listed as one of the
Art and architecture good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 31, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Girih appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 February 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Girih from tr.wikipedia. ( 472819229 et seq.) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Girih. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will ( talk · contribs) 09:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The article maintains a neutral voice, throughout. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. ( talk) 00:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)