Talk:Natural dye/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this point in the review: I took a few days off over the weekend and its taken some time to catch up.

I've now completed my first quick reading of this article; and I conclude that it is at or about GA-level, being well referenced, well illustrated and apparently of wide scope. I'm now starting a more detailed review, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. In passing, I think that the Lead needs more work, but I will discuss that last.

At this point I will only comment below on a section/subsection if I find a "problem" or problems; however it its a trivial problem I may fix it and not raise a comment. This should be completed tomorrow, or perhaps tonight. At the end I will produce an overall summary. Pyrotec (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. - PKM (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origins -

This section looks OK.

Processes -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC) - This section is generally OK, but it is Vague in some places. The statement "Dyers discovered early that combining salt, vinegar, natural alum, or stale urine with certain dyes gave better results...", gives rise to two questions: when? and what dyes?[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC) - The first sentence is unreferenced, but as it does not appear to be controversial I'm not going to demand a citation(s); however, having introduced three means of dyeing, i.e. dyed in the fleece/wool, dyed in the hank and piece-dyed, there is no discussion whatsoever about these three alternatives(?), not even wikilinks. The rest of the section is about the "chemistry" of dyeing, so means of dyeing has been neglected: I like to see it expanded rather than removed. Pyrotec (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; clearly a case of being too close to the material (the article was in my sandbox for a week or so of steady work before being moved to mainspace). I have expanded this section and added citations for "dyed in the fleece" etc. Does this address your concerns? - PKM (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like your recent additions. A big improvement in legibility/information. Pyrotec (talk)

Common dyestuffs -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury dyestuffs -

This section looks OK.

Decline and rediscovery -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC) - This (apart from the WP:Lead) is the section that worries me the most.[reply]

GA Requirement 3(a) and (b), in WP:WIAGA, require a consideration of Broadness rather than the Comprehensive of a FA; i.e. for a GA, covers the main points but does not go into unnecessary detail.
This section has three main themes: discovery and exploitation of synthetic dyes, William Morris, and contrasting Aniline dyes against natural dyes.
The paragraph on synthetic dyes is quite reasonable, possibly more could be said about dye developments after the 1870s, but there is a risk of into unnecessary detail. However, there is (its not mentioned) the development of synthetic fibres and fabrics and possibly synthetic dyes are more suited to synthetic fabrics, but its not mentioned/discussed.
The middle, William Morris, paragraph is quite interesting. I've no suggestions in respect of any changes.
I've suggested that the first paragraph might be the place to discuss synthetic fibres and fabrics, but this section might be the place for such a discussion.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded this section and addressed some of your points (more on dye development, synthetic fabrics), in both the first and third paragraphs. I also tweaked the William Morris section as I was not entirely happy with it. I think the conclusion now needs to be punched up a bit to balance the weight of the synthetic dye info and bring the discussion to a proper close; let me think about how best to do that. - PKM (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a big improvement, so I'm "closing" this off, but you can still add to it if you so wish.
As a comment, I was reading "dyes" up in a "history of chemistry", I don't have any histories of textiles. It seems there was an "economic factor" in early synthetic dyes, setting up production was expensive and as the early demand for particular dyes was fairly small and subject to the whims of fashion, large scale production was delayed until it was economic to do so. These are my words, I should be able to find the source and give a citation - I just neglected to write it down. Pyrotec (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead -

This is intended to both provide an introduction to the article, which it does well, and to provide a summary of the main points of the article. As a "summary" it is a bit on the "thin" side. I would suggest (but I will accept other ways of meeting this aim) a brief distinction between the historical common & luxury dyes; mordants, smelly stuffs such as ammonia, urine, etc; the materials that natural dyes don't work too well on; and processes, such as dyed in the fleece/wool, dyed in the hank, piece-dyed and resist dyeing.

Once the lead has been addressed, I'll award GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the lead; let me know what you think. Thanks for your thoughtful and informed review. - PKM (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated article on natural dyes.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this articlce GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine Good Article.

I suspect that this article has the potential to become an FA if the nominator is prepared to "jump through all the hoops" that such a nomination would entail. Whether or not it is submitted to WP:FAC, a WP:PR would be beneficial. Pyrotec (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - PKM (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]