Talk:Kaunakes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs)

I will be doing the GA review for this article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Refer to comments below, as only a couple of things need addressing and will affect any review of 1a. The prose is clear and well written. The grammar is correct and the spelling was run through a spell checker with no errors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Section headings could be broken into more sections for distinction. Perhaps something like "Background" as the first header and "History" as another just before ‘In a Sumerian image’ and "Purpose" as another (perhaps above ‘An image dated to 3,000 BC…’ Otherwise no issues here.
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.	All sources of information have been provided in an appropriate format.
	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).	The references are from reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent copyvio's detected, Earwig rates it unlikely with 9.1% confidence as well.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects of the subject have been addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is focussed on the garment throughout and doesn't stray off unnecessarily, however, breaking into more sections would give more distinctive parts for clarity.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It is written from a neutral point of view with no editorializing or bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is in a stable condition.
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.	The images have appropriate CC-by 2.5 Generic license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images have appropriate captions and are relevant to the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues have been resolved as was recommended by myself and another editor. The article looks good to me for being a Good Article.

I will be using the above table to complete the review.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at your review, mostly fine I think you might have missed one or two things which I've noted down below. Other than that, there's no formal or correct way to use the table. I just like having it there as a reference tool for myself so that I don't need tabs open all over the place and it's also neater and more compact when addressing each individual criteria. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of Non-reviewer comments;

1. Regarding references and sources; The works of Legrain, Crawford, Corbiau, Langdon, Taha and Dimand aren't cited anywhere in the actual body of the article, I believe these are meant to be "Further reading" as the actual sources that are cited in the article can be found under "Bibliography".

2. Citation 8 is to "Getty Images";

a."An image dated to 3,000 BC from the Temple of Ishtar at Mari, Tell Hariri, in Syria shows kaunakes wrapped as a cloak around the shoulders of an alabaster image of a woman in a seated posture; the kaunakes is inferred as made from goat hair or wool." This text is not properly supported by "Woman sitting wearing kaunakes, fleece cloak made from goat hair or wool, and polos headdress with veil, alabaster statue, from Temple of Ishtar at Mari, Tell Hariri, Syria, Sumerian civilization, 3rd millennium BC" this one. Specifically; 3rd Millenium B.C. could just as easily be 2001 B.C. as 3000 B.C. and leaves for a huge margin of error and should in fact be rewritten to be 3rd Millenium B.C. Lastly, is Getty Images an appropriate source for an encyclopaedia or is it a case-by-case based on the author of the image?

3. I agree with the reviewer that the article should be better broken up into smaller sections. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional review text copied from article talk page

Note: the following subsequent comments were posted to a copy of this review that was added to the article talk page (instead of a proper transclusion). Since the copy does not belong there, it is being deleted and the comments preserved here with the actual review page. (Apologies if this results in new pings.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude Doug Coldwell Thanks for the review. I have addressed few issues such as the one related to shifting of the references not cited in the articles to "Further reading section", and 3000 B.C. changing to 3rd Millenium B.C. I think the text with the Getty Images are as reliable as the text in the Online Gallery of British Library which I have used extensively in writing articles related to India. As SusunW is also major contributor to the article I have requested her to address some of the other review issues.Nvvchar. 12:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude Doug Coldwell SusunW has addressed other issues related to the History section. Please see if all issues raised have been corrected in the article. Will be glad to address any further review observations. Thanks.Nvvchar. 01:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]