Talk:Heaven on Earth: Art from Islamic Lands/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: MartinPoulter (talk · contribs) 16:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 21:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Content and prose review

• Lead seems short. The citations are not strictly needed.

citations removed, but more content for the lead still needed

• Background: also quite short. Did the Hermitage/the Tsars collect any Islamic Art before the October Revolution?
• Can you add more on the Khalili collection? (What is in it, has it been exhibited before, ...) You wrote the article, so you should have sufficient sources.
• Some context on Somerset House could also be included (it sounds like it is huge, with several rooms for Hermitage collection plus the Courtauld Institute).
• Is it possible to give some background on Islamic art? I guess Aniconism in Islam, Islamic calligraphy and Depictions of Muhammad are related topics.

I've adapted one of the background paragraphs from Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam

• The main "Content" section is a somewhat disconnected list of examples in short stubby paragraphs. This does not read very smoothly, and there is no clear organisation (for example, you could tell us whether each of the rooms had a theme and then use the rooms to organise the content). I appreciate that, owing to its massive scope both historically and geographically, this exhibition may have had less of a story to tell than Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam, but you could still try to capture it better.
• It is odd to mention the prohibition of silver and gold vessels, but not to mention aniconism.

Background now mentions aniconism

• The "June changeover" paragraph interrupts the description of the content and should be moved after it.

done

• Reception and legacy: this could do with an introductory paragraph.

added an introductory sentence- not sure what more to say without duplication

• Do you know the names of the reviewers for the final three quoted publications?

added the two out of three author names that were available

• "sensous" probably should be "sensuous"

fixed

• Publications: what about the catalogue? It should be described. I assume it contains various essays, possibly by interesting authors?

Generally, the article seems to need some fleshing out and a more convincing organisation of the Content section.

added sentence about the essays in the catalogue

Source spotchecks

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1226537678. A few random checks:

• 4: ok.
• 9: ok. Here we have something about the arrangement of the exhibition into separate rooms that could be used to structure the Content section.
• 14: ok from snippet view
• 20: probably ok from snippet view
• 22: could not access
• 23: ok
• 24: ok. There is also some description of the content that could be used.

Source checks passed. —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

General comments and GA criteria

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Prose is generally good but the short paragraphs in the Content section stand out negatively.
• No major MoS issues other than "lead too short".
• Sources mostly nicely formatted (could be more consistent though: normalise case of PREVIEW, add punctuation in "Linked by Muddle Hypnotic beauty of God's mind"); generally reliable. No original research or copyvio issues.
• Broadness: this is the main problem. A lot of context seems to be missing or touched upon only too briefly. I wonder whether the exhibition catalogue can already help to improve this?
• Can't see any issues with neutrality or stability.
• The article is beautifully illustrated with free images (thank you for your work related to these). Captions could perhaps make it slightly clearer that all these were exhibited (especially in the infobox) and not just decorative.

Done reviewing, putting on hold. —Kusma (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Kusma. Very much appreciate the review being both quick and very thorough! I have started making the minor changes. Fixing the breadth problem and extending the background will take more careful consideration of sources, and I have a lot of work coming up on a different project, but I will try to address the problems over the coming two weeks. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: Sure. Just ping me when you want me to have another look. —Kusma (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kusma, after a couple of weeks when I've only had time to address the smaller points, I'm working on a project that will greatly diminish the time for on-wiki work, then there's Wikimania, then another project. Your recommendations are excellent, and I think there is a clear way forward to GA quality, but I can't predict when I'll have the time when other work is taking precedence. Thus, I think you should fail this for now and I'll renominate when I know I can put in the required effort. I'm very grateful indeed for your input, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: OK, will do. When you renominate, let me know if you want me to pick up the review again. Enjoy Wikimania! —Kusma (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.