Talk:Khalili Collection of Hajj and the Arts of Pilgrimage/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) 13:12, 28 August 2021 (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. | |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 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). |
A citation needed tag is added.
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
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. | Removed some borderline peacock terms. |
|
|
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. | Many of images are from the collection's site and are backed by a permission mail. File:Khalili Collection Hajj Kabah curtain.jpg and File:Khalili Collection Hajj Mahmal cover.jpg do not have the said permission verified by a VRT member.
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | GA PASS.Redtigerxyz Talk 15:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
- Thanks User:Redtigerxyz for this quick and helpful review. The document which has been used as a source for those two images and for the list of exhibitions has a CC-BY-SA 3.0 declaration at the foot. You're correct that the site as a whole is copyright by default, but this particular page has its own CC declaration. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you mention the "author profile". MartinPoulter (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually I was referring to the same declaration. By author profile (I understand it is confusing description), I meant Khalili's personal site [1]. For images, the lower resolution images on Khalili's personal site may be CC 3.0; the higher resolution on collections site are used in the article (which are "All rights reserved") - they should go by the VRT route, like the other images. I am okay to pass the article is without these 2 articles.
- Please clarify what "text from a free content work" is incorporated. Please also address the citation tag.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- The bullet-point list of exhibitions is taken from the source work. Here's an Earwig comparison of the documents. I've resolved the citation issue by bringing the text closer in line with the citation. The two images now have the correct OTRS template. I was remiss in uploading higher resolution versions without updating the licence statement, so thanks for drawing my attention to that. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks again User:Redtigerxyz. You've clearly been very careful and it's much appreciated. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)