Talk:Muslin trade in Bengal/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nomader (talk · contribs) 03:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing this article currently. Will be placing my full review this evening. Nomader (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I'm failing this article for a few reasons-- although, I do think that it's a terrific start, I think this is too soon to reasonably expect improvement in the time of a hold.

• 1a Fail: Although the prose and grammar are generally fine, the article is somewhat muddled-- it's as if the fringes of the subject are talked about but not the subject itself. We see that muslin was prized based on the fact that it was traded, but do any records exist that say why it was so successful in being cultivated in Bengal?
• 1b Fail: The article currently fails 1b due to the following reasons:
  • The article does not meet WP:LEAD. It gives a sentence about what Muslin is, but does not describe the subject at all.
  • The overall layout could be improved. The sections feel awkwardly broken up, and little is talked about the legacy of muslin as well.
• 2a Fail: Citations do not correspond with each other (differing styles). This is minor stuff though and can be easily fixed.
• 2b Fail: Although the sources used are satisfactory, the article is missing a number of sources for sentences that could be challenged to a point that it fails this criterion. Some examples of sentences that should be sourced are listed below (these are just taken from the Mughal era section):
  • "During Ottoman rule from the sixteenth century onwards, large quantities of muslin was exported to middle-east."
  • "In the early seventeenth century, British and Dutch merchants arrived at the Indian Subcontinent sailing via the Red Sea."
  • "The Ostend Company came to Bengal at the beginning of the eighteenth century."
  • "When they found the business very profitable, they also made settlements in Dhaka."
• 3a Fail: I think this is the crux of why I am outright failing instead of putting on hold. There's never anything written here that talks about muslin as a subject or why it was cultivated and traded. This article simply focuses on the fact that it was. What is muslin? Although the article for muslin should be the main place for that sort of description, a reader should be able to come away with enough broad strokes to understand all the different pieces of the puzzle, and I don't think that's anywhere close to possible here.

I think that the underlying issues are pretty tough to fix within the next week, so I'm failing the article. However, if @Tahmina.tithi: can address my comments and creates a new GAN, I'll be more than happy to come back and review ASAP. Nomader (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nomader for your review. I would try to work to improve the Aricle. --tahmina.tithi (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, @Tahmina.tithi:! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help or if you have any questions at all. Nomader (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)