Talk:Hebron glass/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose has been addressed enough for GA quality but will need more work to advance.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   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:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

• "Still produced today by a few Palestinian families who have kept the secrets of the trade among family members who work in the glass factories,[2] the products made include glass jewellery, such as beads, bracelets, and rings,[3] stained glass windows and glass lamps, among others." Long run on sentence, please break up and reword.

Re-formulated. --Afluegel (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Jewellery

• This sentence, "The silver and jewellery shop pictured to the right, according to Shelagh Weir the author of Palestinian Costumes, shows evil eye beads (as pictured at the top left), and Hebron-made glass bracelets sold alongside this shopkeeper's main ware of silver or metal wire" is a glorified caption to the photo and is a stub paragraph. Please combine it with the previous sentence.

Done by Al Ameer son.

Regarding Hebron Trade beads

• This sentence is poorly worded and is a stub paragraph, "The English traveller William George Browne mentions in 1799 the production in Palestine of "Coarse glass beads...called Hersh and Munjir", where the Mongur (Munjir) were the large beads, while the Harish (Hersh) were smaller." Please reword and either expand or combine with another paragraph. H1nkles (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.

• "There, they picked up the name "Kano Beads", although they were not originally produced there." Duplicative use of the word, "there", please reword. H1nkles (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Done by Al Ameer son

Overall review

• there are some prose issues, minor issues but they are there. The last section on the trade beads is particularly poorly written and should be addressed.

Done. I took care of the "Hebron trade beads" section.

• The lead is a little short, for example there is nothing about the production process in the lead.

Done Afluegel took care of that.

• The formatting is a little odd, there's a large space between the Jewellery heading and the text. Why is that?

Taken care of It was the "Palestinians" template. Afluegel fixed it.

• Consider moving the reference in the body of the article to the photo into the caption of the photo. It makes more sense there.

Done.

• Is there anything else that could be added to the article? Such as what is currently being made? Where is it sold? Is this industry a source of national pride for Palestinians?

Done I added all that (except the "national pride" part) in the new "Today" subsection of the "History" section.

• Linking is good, photos are good, references are good though I can't fact check much but it is taken in good faith.

I didn't really source this article myself, but I'm sure most of the books listed in the "Bibliography" section are in google books, so I'll provide the urls for them.

• I'm hesitant to pass it without a thorough prose massage, please address this and the other issues outlined here. I'll put it on hold for a week. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to address some of the prose issues as best I could, although it may still need a little touch up by someone smarter than myself. Zaereth (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You've addressed my concerns and I will happily pass this article. H1nkles (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)