Talk:Islamic calligraphy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mhhossein (talk · contribs) 17:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to review this article. I've already made a very brief review on the article, but detailed investigation on the article takes time. So, I'll present my suggestion in near future. Any suggestions from other editors who hasn't contributed in writing the article are welcomed. Mhhossein (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments and suggestions:

Checklist

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.	The prose has no problem considering grammar and spelling. Possible violation of copy right laws is observed. For instance, you may just google these unreferenced sentences to check it: "The traditional instrument of the Arabic calligrapher is the qalam, a pen made of dried reed or bamboo." "Coins were another support for calligraphy. Beginning in 692 Coins were another support for calligraphy. Beginning in 692, the Islamic caliphate reformed the coinage of the Near East by replacing visual depiction by words." More violation cases may be found !
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section is not a summary of the article. It's suggested to add a summary of the 'Styles' section to the lead. There was no problem with "words to watch". The article complies with manual of style guidelines for layout.
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.	List of references are provided according to the 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).	Some of the references used can't be counted as reliable source. At least, this one on which the article is heavily relied, is expired and no longer is accessible.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some parts of the article is not in accordance with the reference used. For example, it is stated that "Nasta'liq is a cursive style originally devised to write the Persian language...", while Nastaliq is not cursive, according to the source it is referred to. In Fact, Shikasta Nastaliq is cursive, according to this article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Other topics may be discussed. It is suggested to add a section entitled "Famous calligraphers" or sth like this.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	One or some of the above problems are not still resolved after 8 days. May be next time it make a Good article. I regret to say that I have to fail the article for now. Mhhossein (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Kosack:Islamische Schriftkunst des Kufischen. Geometrisches Kufi in 593 Schriftbeispielen. Deutsch – Kufi – Arabisch. Christoph Brunner, Basel 2014, ISBN 978-3-906206-10-3.

https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&query=islamische+schriftkunst+des+kufischen --77.58.210.35 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]