Talk:Kilim motifs

Kilim motifs has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 5, 2017. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kilim motifs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kpalion (talk · contribs) 10:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chiswick Chap, I'd like to review this article. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
What is the geographic scope of this article? It seems to be limited to Turkish kilims, but our Kilim article says they are also woven elsewhere. Perhaps this should be explained a little better in the lead, otherwise it's somewhat confusing. Or maybe even in the article's title (Turkish kilim motifs, Anatolian kilim motifs)? The temporal scope is unclear as well. The lead is written in the past tense, but doesn't specify the time period when these motifs were being used. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose a renaming as you suggest (after the GAN is complete, moves tangle up the GAN process. The scope is largely Turkey/Anatolia, as the article states, with some applicability outside that region, as it also states, so I'm not sure we can be any more precise. The temporal scope is not precisely specifiable, as tribal and village cultures have simply faded over the past century, and are even today not quite dead. I've added a few works to that effect in the article.
? Thanks. One thing that still bug me though, is the use of the word "tribal". What does it mean in this context? Are there tribal and non-tribal Turks? Is it just a euphemism for "rural" or "pastoral"? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not being applied loosely here. Many types of carpet are distinctive of specific peoples who have their own cultural traditions; often, they were nomadic, and carpet patterns enabled them to express their collective identity. In Anatolia we are talking about settled peoples so 'village' is a workable label. With the fading of tribal society the meaning embodied in kilims has concomitantly faded: their tribal nature is essential to their weaving, and as we see in modern times, it's basically impossible to make kilims with anything like traditional feeling and complexity without that social structure.
OK. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is some inconsistency regarding the capitalization of motif names (in English and Turkish). I've tried to fix it myself, but I'm unsure as to whether they are supposed to be capitalized or not. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a good job. I think it makes good sense to capitalise the Turkish names as these are seen purely as proper names of motifs when written in English.
Thank you. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some common words (wolf, ram) are wikilinked for no apparent reason. On the other hand, it would be good to link some other terms, like "trousseau chest". — Kpalion^(talk) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I think ram is worth linking for city folks.
Thank you. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Please provide page numbers in citations. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
Thank you. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kilim.com is a rug store website. Sahika Unal is a Powerpoint presentation printed in pdf. I have my doubts as to their reliability, but considering that they are cited along with more reliable sources, I think they may stay. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.

The Nurdan Taskiran link is dead. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated URL, added it to archive.org, added archiveURL link.
Thank you. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The table in the "Motifs" section is not entirely clear to me. What does the "Object" column trying to say? Some of the notes in the "Notes" column are too brief to explain anything (for example, what is the connection between a star and a Solomon's seal?) Is there any particular reason why "male" and "female" are represented by symbols instead of being spelled out? — Kpalion^(talk) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Object' column is to be read alongside the 'Purpose' column to its left. E.g. Elibelinde has [purpose]: fertility within [object]: marriage. Another example: Amulet's [purpose]: luck, protection against [object]: the evil eye. I guess we could call it 'Within' or 'Context' if that works better for you, but given these two examples I think you can see that 'Object' gets the meaning better.

Male and female principles spelled out in English.

Solomon's seal flower looks like a little star; stated this in article.
? Okay, but what does it have to do with fertility, happiness and marriage? Also, where in the amulet motif is the verse contained and what does it say? I'd really like to see the notes in the table a little more fleshed out because for now they don't really explain much, at least to a layman like me. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This can't really be unpacked: the people simply associated these symbols with these meanings, as the sources state. An amulet (designed to be worn) contained a verse (of the Koran) written on a piece of paper and sewn inside; an amulet woven into a kilim did not have any such physical bit of paper attached. The Notes column is intended only to provide supporting information (like footnotes); the main purpose of the table is to name and illustrate the motifs. For example, I could try to unpack the Hook motif by saying "Presumably the hook was imagined as being a sharp instrument used to pull out and destroy the evil eye", but that would be my own interpretation. What is stated and illustrated is clear, sufficient, and sourced.
OK. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I don't know whether Jon Thompson actually believes in dark unseen forces and that amulets woven into carpets really work to produce a magic force field, but quoting this without qualification in an encyclopedia looks weird, to say the least. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly did not, and nor do we. Added attribution to village and tribal cultures. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
File:Antique Konya Kilim detail.jpg is derived from an image said to come from Kilim.com, but no link to the original is provided, nor a proof that it is released under a free license. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antique Konya Kilim.jpg is licensed under CC-by-SA-3.0 and is stated to be own work of User:Cangurel, piped to www.Kilim.com: they undoubtedly took the photograph of one of their own stock of carpets. I made a detail and labelled it. I have wikilinked the source image on Commons.
? The source image page says it comes from www.Kilim.com, but it's pipelinked to a non-existent user page. Is it possible to provide the actual source and validate the license? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you're thinking. The image is marked as 'Own work' by User:Cangurel, who has not edited his own page (so it's red) but whose user account does exist, there's a talk page welcome. He states he's from www.kilim.com and the image is indeed available at https://www.kilim.com/types/kilim-rugs?age=3&pcid=4.

File:Turkish carpet.jpg and File:Tree of Life (Hayat Agaci).JPG are photographs of two-dimensional works (kilims), that is, derivative works. The authorship of photographs is given, but who are the authors of the actual kilims? And are the original works in public domain or released under a free license? 23:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Kilims are almost always woven anonymously and even for the second of these images, of a carpet in my possession, the weavers are unknown (though they were of the Selcuk cooperative). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
? Per Commons:2D copying, a photograph of a 2-dimensional work of art "does not generate any new copyright because the resulting work is defined entirely by the original work; there is no creative input. Therefore, authors who create 2D copies are not entitled to copyright for these works, and the copyright of the original work applies." It's possible the kilim is in public domain, but if this is the case, then the photographer couldn't release his work under a CC license, because he never owned the copyright in the first place. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it is certainly lawful to take and publish a photograph of a carpet that is either in a public place or in the owner's own collection. Please don't worry about it. Carpets are probably 3D, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall, an interesting and informative article. Some issues need to be fixed, though. Please see my comments above. If there are any you disagree with, please discuss. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review (I've been out of office). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, thanks for the changes so far. I've still got some comments, though, marked with large question marks above. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Hi Chiswick Chap, everything looks good except for the copyright. It's a Wikipedia policy issue, so we really need to get it sorted out before I can promote the article. The thing is, it doesn't matter who owns the rug or who took a picture of it; the copyright still belongs to whoever designed and/or weaved the rug. If they were made anonymously, it only makes the issue harded, not easier, because you don't know whether the author of the rug has been dead for at least 70 years or not. It seems that all three pictures are of rugs that were commercially made and relatively recently, so these images are most likely copyright violations. As I wrote, this is a policy issue, so it's better to be on the safe side, unless you can get an OTRS with the copyright owner's permission for each rug. Other rug photographs have been deleted from Commons for the same reason.

That said, I'm aware that this article does need illustrations. My suggestion would be to reupload them in smaller resolution (the resolution in File:Antique Konya Kilim detail.jpg is fine) directly to Wikipedia and claim fair use for educational purposes. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kpalion I think that's all nonsense, but to save time I've made my labelled image into a Wikipedia image with NFUR and removed the other two. I guess the article is bearable in this state. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, copyright law is a 19th-century anachronism that doesn't make sense in today's information-based society. I know it's frustrating. Anyway, the article is now a GA. Good job! — Kpalion^(talk) 21:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]