Jump to content

Talk:Batik/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Batik Production

How is it said that the batik dye comes . BatmobileFire (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Pronounciation

How is batik pronounced? BA-tik or ba-TIK? Could be useful to add that to the text.


Stress is generally predictable and non-contrastive in Indonesian and Malay, so both pronunciations are acceptable. Syedhusni (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Why is the IPA given only for Malay, with no indication of Indonesian? Especially strange because most of the text is about Java. Martindo (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Batik software

The Batik SVG software has nothing whatever to do with this topic. It is simply a product name, albeit a cute one for Java software.

--

The Java XML 'Batik SVG Toolkit' is also the first hit on Google for 'batik' - try http://www.google.com/search?q=batik

Perhaps a disambiguation page would help those looking for summary info on http://xml.apache.org/batik/ - just checked and no entry for same in Wikipedia, nor FOLDOC.

Search of Wikipedia for 'batik svg' yielded 2 hits: Scalable Vector Graphics and Apache XML

Dutch spelling

Why use dutch spelling for canting? I think it's inapropriate202.69.101.170 09:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

indonesian language used to have dutch spelling in every latin words, even today some of the words still being used. dutch spelling is part of indonesian spelling also.HoneyBee 20:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
But we are no longer using that kind of spelling. The solution would be mentioning "canting" with "Dutch spelling:tjanting" in brackets.202.180.52.37 09:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"tjanting" is not a Dutch word. Not in my version of the van Dale anyway. I believe it to be either Indonesian or Javanese, not sure though. Anyway, it is just the way it is pronounced. As far as I know this pronounciation is still current, therefore I rolled back the removal of the pronunciation. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 17:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
To add to my previous comment: "tjap" is in my dictionary. But, I think that what the dutch spelling is, is not relevant for this article. The more important aspect of the terms canting and cap is that the pronunciation of these words is different from what your average english speaking reader would expect. Therefore, the emphasis should be on the pronunciation of these words. Entymology of these words is hardly relevant here and should belong on the wiktionary. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 17:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like external links need to be cleaned up.

However, would like to propose the following set of articles labelled Batiks And How To Make Them. It was originally published in the early 1900's and presents a good history of Batik.


Greetings - updated the external links section to be of ability. Removed a few sites that looked like commercial sites. Try to leave the best of them. Smithville 00:36, 22 November 5096 

(UTC)

Please, if you want to include an external link, find a reliable source, non commercial and really really add additional information. Simply put a link to any website without proper reliable authors of who made the article in the website is not good enough. — Indon (reply) — 08:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

General Suggestions

The History section is starting to firm up. It would be good to see a greater diversity of sources. However, a more significant concern is that the lead (introduction) focuses on Indonesia but the History section has only speculation about Indonesia until the 12th century CE. If that is the best we can determine from written records, then it would be ideal to explain why the technique became more famously associated with Indonesia. Was intricacy the key factor?

The article is growing nicely and some sections might be created to support further expansion. For example, the last paragraph of History could be split off into a new section on Uses, perhaps with a few photos of non-clothing applications. Also, the last part of Procedure is really about modernization of techniques (cap and then automated printing), which could be separated into a new section on Industrialization (or a similar heading). The new section would show examples of cap versus tulis, thereby educating the public (and potential buyers) about how to tell the difference. Keep up the good work, Aireen! Martindo (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just read the message. Like the new sections. I have moved the last paragraph to the culture section. Not sure whether that is correct, but I think a new section should be created when there is more infos included by other users. Right now, I have run out of ideas, thanks for the batik variates section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aireen Deviani Harsoyo (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Was intricacy the key factor

I think there are 3 things contributing to why it is associated with Indonesia. 1. Good quality 2. Raffles mentioned it the first time that it came from Indonesia 3. The Dutch were really serious in doing the textile business in Indonesia, (got the info from Dutch Wiki) but I can't really deciper what they are saying, only fractions of words. It's good if there is a Dutch to explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.130.140 (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Internationalization

While modifying Gunkarta's recent modification of the text on Nelson Mandela, I started wondering if this paragraph is overblown. The fact that Mandela's trademark Madiba shirt was designed by a white woman from South Africa in the 1990s is only a minor issue. IMO, the major issue is the use of famous people in this paragraph to "prove" the internationalization of batik. Surely, President Obama's late mother was not the only person to collect batik. What exactly is the point of mentioning her?

Perhaps we should cut that paragraph entirely?

It seems to me that widespread use of batik (or other wax resist techniques) in a given country would be a clearer sign of dissemination. History is not just a story about famous people. The History section of this WP article mentions Yoruba and other African use of wax resist. I'd like to see that aspect expanded, because it might show old cultural interaction.

Also, let's be cautious about making this article too political. True, there has been a very controversial dispute this year, but WP articles last a lot longer than one year. Bear in mind that there are many cases of cultural transmission that go so far back that it is hard to prove who gave what to whom. See for example claims about mancala versus congkak. Martindo (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Gallery is great! Can we keep an eye out to avoid flooding it with modern fashion? Say, a general guideline to have 50% or more of the images show traditional batik, which is still far more prevalent.

BTW, isn't the Tarim Basin photo "wax resist dyed cloth" as clarified in a recent correction of History section? It's not called batik locally, so I think we should use the generic term in the caption. Martindo (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


Agreed, we should emphasize more on traditional and cultural aspects of batik. Nevertheless displaying example of batik in modern fashion shows that batik is dynamic and evolve well into modern day Indonesian fashion.

About Tarim Basin, should we differentiate "batik" with "wax resist dyed cloth"? "Batik" is Javanese origin term, but wax resist dyed cloth is far older and spread wider.(Gunkarta (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC))


I corrected the caption to match the text of history section, which treats "was resist" in general, showing the broad geographical range of the technique.Martindo (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It now appears that only 2 of the 6 photos in the Gallery section show ordinary people. Can we delete the last two "modern" ones, retaining only the black-white and the Miss Indonesia?
Okay I'll delete those batik fashion pictures. Another picture of Indonesian batik school uniform would be great. (Gunkarta (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC))
Alternatively, we could make a new page called "Batik Fashion" or "Modern Batik Fashion" and put those photos there, with a link from this page. The new page would allow MANY variations, such as patchwork batik (in style in the 1990s). Martindo (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea. (Gunkarta (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

Well done. I think a school uniform photo, as well as a government official (or a middle class person at a wedding or other formal affair) would be more appropriate than a slew of fashion images. Martindo (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


thankyou! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.43.167 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

From Indonesia

The lead should mention that batik originated in Indonesia. As it is now, it says that batik is "found in Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, China, Azerbaijan, India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Nigeria, Senegal, and Singapore". Batik is an Indon-Malay tradition. Similar types of patterned cloth may be found in these other countries, but to categorise all of them as "batik" is like saying all dance-dramas are ballet. Morinae (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can verify this conclusively with reliable sources, then by all means make the appropriate change. WP:BEBOLD. Or ask for assistance. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That sentence has been bothering me for a little while. It looks like a "coat-rack" with a variety of countries hung on it at random. I've moved it to the "Culture" section, and tagged it as needing citation. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To put it simple, batik isn’t 100% from Indonesia. We can’t simply point out that batik originated from Indonesia. According to UNESCO, the origin of batik is unknown. The concept of batik varies, it can be for clothing, sculptures or even canvas painting. Batik is an abstract concept of both tradition and arts. We can’t claim that this one country holds the ownership of batik when the UNESCO doesn’t even point out the real owner & the real concept behind batik. Exiledexhillium (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

To put it simple, batik isn’t 100% from Indonesia. We can’t simply point out that batik originated from Indonesia. According to UNESCO, the origin of batik is unknown. The concept of batik varies, it can be for clothing, sculptures or even canvas painting. Batik is an abstract concept of both tradition and arts. We can’t claim that this one country holds the ownership of batik when the UNESCO doesn’t even point out the real owner & the real concept behind batik. Exiledexhillium (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Should we moved the "Types and variation of Batik" section below "Indonesia"?

The article seems broke, starting with Indonesia, then other countries, and then Indonesia again (the batik types mentioned in the section are all Indonesian). So, is it a good idea to move this section below Indonesia? That way, the other country can created their own "type and variation" section specific to their own country. I think I will do this if no body objected.--Rochelimit (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.samuibatik.com,
    Triggered by \bsamuibatik\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Batik/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 07:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC) I'll be happy to take on this interesting article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. completed full copy-edit.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. lead:ok (maybe still rather short) layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. 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). ok
2c. it contains no original research. More citations are needed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. ok
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). ok
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ok
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. ok
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. ok
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All gallery images need captions explaining what they are.
7. Overall assessment. The article has been considerably revised during this GA review, and is now clearly above the minimum standard required. It is pleasing that the stimulus of the review has caused the article to be brought up to standard, but by the same token it was definitely not of the required standard when initially presented, lacking both in coverage and in citations. Further improvement will document variations of technique and styles around Indonesia and elsewhere, and will seek to describe the history and cross-cultural influences in more detail.

Comments

  • The pronunciation of 'cap' and 'canting' need to be shown. These are still spelt 'tjap, tjanting' by Western suppliers of batik equipment. e.g. Dharma Trading (CA) - there are plenty more. So I think a brief mention that these were the old Indonesian spellings, influenced by Dutch, and the pronunciation is 'Chap, Chanting' (guess you'll have to use the IPA notation) is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The gallery images are rather too large, and need to have captions that both justify their inclusion and explain what they are. It would be helpful to wikilink technical terms and placenames in such captions (even if already linked in the article).
  • The table seems very plain at the moment. Would suggest a small image in a 4th column of the table to show the nature of the influence; and should wikilink the many places and technical terms in the table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There aren't separate articles for cap, canting so these and other tools need to be illustrated, captioned and explained here. The 'Technique' section needs to be extended (considerably) to make it clear what processes are involved, but steering clear of 'how to do it' detail.
  • The names of some of the more famous patterns e.g. the coffee bean batik, the parang rusak (broken sword), etc, need to be shown and ideally illustrated. I may be able to upload some images if you need them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the nominator asked some questions of the GA reviewer here.

Good source

This BBC piece goes deeply into the history of batik in Indonesia, and the link to West African fabrics. Wax Print. 112.119.117.119 (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Batik in English

The batik word has been absorbed into English. Furthermore, batik is an English loanword from Javanese or even Indonesian/Malay baṭik. Thus the "batik" word does not need to be italicized in the article and its title.[1][2][3][4] —Ibra Bintang (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ Merriam-Webster, p. [1]
  2. ^ Oxford English Dictionary: Batik
  3. ^ Dictionary.com: Batik
  4. ^ Blust, Robert (Winter 1989). "Austronesian Etymologies – IV". Oceanic Linguistics. 28 (2): 111–180. doi:10.2307/3623057. JSTOR 3623057.

Hi everyone! As i read through this wikipedia article, I notice that it seems to miss another important factor on what makes batik so special, and I am planning on adding a table containing 10 of the most popular batik motifs in Indonesia whereby I'll be adding its explanation since I think it would help others who read this page to further understand how distinctive batik is and how each one is vastly different from the other! I am pretty new to Wikipedia, so I do apologize if there are any mistakes, but if there are please feel free to edit them or message me about it, as I am always willing to learn! Thank you --CarmenBanks (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

GA and POV pushing

Hi @Chiswick Chap: I hope you've been well. I've looked through this article, and I have to say, a lot of it contents no longer bear much resemblance to the version you reviewed and passed as GA a number of years ago. While it is good to see that some of the content concerning the varieties of batik clothing and techniques have been expanded, I can't help but observe that quite a few editors have resorted to WP:SOAPBOX behaviour and have been largely been preoccupied over steering the POV of the article's content to suit their own preferences. Most problematic was the lede, which I have since edited to remove nationalistic language and more closely match the prose of the original reviewed version. What are your thoughts on how to cleanup any questionable content on the current version of the article and ensuring that it still complies with GA criteria and a neutral POV? Haleth (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have fixed it, really. The article as a whole is not in a bad shape, though much expanded. I've fixed a few small issues but most of the material seems broadly apposite. I'm not sure about the quality of the sourcing; that's not POV but may indicate that some of the more scholarly materials on batik that abound in textbooks and journal articles would be better choices. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
A specific issue is that many web sources do not indicate their publisher (or author, not that that'd help a lot here). We ought not to be using anything from a batik shop, for instance, or a private individual's website or blog. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, and I agree, unless they are demonstrated to be published subject matter experts. I have already discarded a few of those as sources, but within the original context of their usage cited to problematic prose, it appears to be an attempt to demonstrate its perceived "Indonesian-ness" outside of its borders. Haleth (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The theme

Show the themes 41.223.73.234 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

0715468804 2C0F:FE38:2105:8246:1:2:C413:F9B0 (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

0715468804 2C0F:FE38:2105:8246:1:2:C413:F9B0 (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article.
    • Fixed.
  • The lead, at five paragraphs, is longer than the recommended number listed at WP:LEADLENGTH.
    • Fixed.
  • There is a gallery section, even though Wikiped is not a gallery (WP:NOTGALLERY)
    • Removed.
  • The "Batik museums" section contains promotional information, including when museums are open.
    • Opening times are plain facts, not promotion, though whether we should be listing such details in a textile article is more doubtful; removed per WP:NOTCATALOG. We could in fact remove the whole thing to a separate list: List of batik museums if folks feel the business of museums is close to off-topic for this article.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I would have been, as the GA nom a decade ago, had I been informed ... anyway, I've done it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Batik

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This article has uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs, and "citation needed" tags from Jan. 2024. There's also "better source needed" tags from 2021 that need to be resolved in order to maintain its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed all the uncited, citation needed, and better source needed issues. I've copy-edited the text to fix repetition, vague claims, and anything that sounded promotional. I've merged some near-duplicate sections and removed a lot of gratuitous images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
It seems very odd that the version that was promoted in 2014 was about the technique used in a number of countries, whereas the version now is about "an Indonesian technique". I'm not convinced that change is in the direction of neutrality, especially as the technique is much older than Indonesia. CMD (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
[a later reply to Chipmunkdavis] I agree that the page focus is unclear, but the term's use is also mixed. The english word batik are mostly used to refer Indonesian batik, but it is also used to refer generic resist-dye methods that are technically similar but culturally unrelated crafts like Chinese batik. Perhaps it is best to clarify at the top that the article is mostly used to discuss Indonesian batik? Alteaven (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
The article is about Batik in general, not only Indonesian, and that is how it went through GA back in 2014. Since then much Indonesian material has been added, risking unbalance as well as loss of focus. We would be quite justified in splitting out much of the Indonesian material to Batik in Indonesia, leaving this article to cover all countries relatively evenly, with Indonesia's chapter having a "main" link at the top and a paragraph in "summary style" giving a brief resumé of the linked article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see that Indonesian batik patterns has already been split out; that would be one component of Batik in Indonesia. Obviously it goes a part of the way towards what I was suggesting, but numerous aspects of Indonesian batik culture remain as unbalanced elements in the article, and I feel more sure than before that splitting is now necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Yes, I think that that section is the most prone to contain lengthy digression and unsubstantiated claims. I agree that a separate Indonesian batik page is perhaps warranted. Though I am unsure how to rebalance the current batik article since most scholarly article are indeed about Indonesian batik. Any suggestion? Alteaven (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps we should be careful to focus on batik-the-wax-resist-dyeing-process, which is after all what the term means, and move aspects of Indonesian culture such as its use for ceremonies out to other article(s). If we have a Batik in Indonesia article then we can put all the Indonesian culture, ceremonies, and museums there, which would go a long way to making this article more balanced. Oh, and we can move out the two Indonesian infoboxes which are seriously distorting the article, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Right, I've boldly gone... Alteaven, would you like to say a little more about non-Javanese batik in the 'Indonesia' section? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: I think its fine like that. The only section left to edit is technique, or is the current state okay? Alteaven (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the techniques section is just right. There's an uncited statement in 'Indonesia' which needs a bit of expansion really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll try to add something in few days to come, but I think the current overall version is much less cluttered Alteaven (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, a huge improvement. I see you've removed the uncited statement, so we're all done here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay, wonderful. Thank you Alteaven (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
[an earlier reply to Chipmunkdavis] Both then (the text I brought to GA) and now, the article covered batik from Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, China, and Africa, and the old lead said so. To restore that position, I've tweaked the current lead to reflect that more clearly, moved some doubtfully-neutral Indonesian claims out of the lead, and trimmed the Indonesian material in the lead for due weight. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
The article did cover it, but the focus had shifted. Thanks for the quick work. Some heavy copyediting is still needed, I don't fully understand the first sentence of the History section, and the entire Culture section needs a rewrite. There may be a need for some source checks as well. Moving a bit beyond GA issues, having 3 infoboxes seems a bit much, especially on mobile, but thankfully they're each not too long. There are a lot of subsections, but they seem justified by the diverse subject matter. CMD (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Happy to copyedit a bit, but you are indeed going beyond the GA criteria now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
The copyediting is not beyond the GACR, it is very firmly in GACR1. CMD (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Done already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Those were just examples. Some of the batik "is close to magical elements from the kingdoms in Central Java and Yogyakarta", others are "identical and representative of Sundanese culture in general", other odd bits are here and there. CMD (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Um, ok, will fix those, but it's no good just waving at the whole article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I found all these things on a very quick read, plus other errors I fixed or tagged. I strongly suspect a more detailed look will turn up even more. The process doesn't require doing a line by line breakdown here though given the state the prose was in. CMD (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I've been through most of the Indonesianised text, will check the rest. My point was that for a fair process, comments need to be itemised to things that can be specifically actioned, not lumped, so there's a way to respond to each item decently. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not think this article is ready for reassessment. May I be allowed time to contribute to the article further? Alteaven (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Oh my, the history section is also a mess. It is full of unsubstantiated claims. Alteaven (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alteaven: If editors are actively working on an article, I am happy to have a GAR remain open. Z1720 (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Alteaven and I seem to be happy with the now-reshaped article. We have split out Batik in Indonesia and Indonesian batik patterns. The article is now balanced and globalised, effectively an updated version of the 2014 GA text and of not much greater length than that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alteaven and Chiswick Chap: Some things I noticed when reviewing the latest version of the article:

  • I added a cn tag for the "Written batik" section. The first paragraph of "Malaysia" also needs a citation, and there is a hidden note for a citation for National Geographic. Is this the citation for this paragraph?
    • Written batik: Restored the refs.
    • Malaysia para 1: Restored the hidden ref.
  • I think the amount of images needs to be reduced, as Wikipedia is not a gallery. Lots of images make the page hard to load for some editors, and, as someone who is unfamiliar with the topic, I am not sure what I am supposed to notice in each of the images. The images at the beginning of the "Cultures" section might be better served if they were beside the culture they were to represent.
Respectfully, I do not agree. The images are in an appropriate amount for topic of visual arts, and they can be related to the text. History section show samples which are mentioned in text. In keeping with the globalized theme, varied examples needed to be shown. In the technique, the images show close up of relevant implement and how it is applied. Placement for images in the culture section however can be changed as suggested. Alteaven (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. The article contains no gratuitous images or galleries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Missing aspects include the history of the artwork and European interest in the 19th century, techniques, description of patterns and motifs, and differences in the tradition in major cultures highlighted. References in the lead should probably be moved to the article body, per MOS:LEADCITE
  • The article needs a copyedit. I have done some of it myself, but it would be useful if a subject-matter expert did this to avoid changing the meaning of sentences.

Those are my comments so far. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  • My concerns have been resolved and I do not have additional concerns, so I do not mind if this is declared keep. I hope that the sources listed in "Further reading" can be used as inline citations or removed in the near future. Z1720 (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
    Many thanks. My understanding is that you are free to close it with "Keep", or any uninvolved editor can now so close it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 9 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Batik/Archive_1&oldid=1257496876"