Template:Did you know nominations/Girih

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lord Roem (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Girih

(

)

... that some girih tiling patterns used by medieval Islamic artisans exhibited quasicrystalline tiling, five centuries before Penrose tilings were discovered in Europe?

Reviewed: Architecture of Turkey.

Created/expanded by İnfoCan (talk). Self nom at 16:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is long and new enough. It is a translation of an article in Turkish Wikipedia, and I find no copyvios in either the English or Turkish versions. A few of the paragraphs are missing citations; once these are added, this article will pass. Also, the image is (I think) of a pattern that does not exhibit the quasicrystal pattern mentioned in the hook. If possible an image of a quasicrystalline girih should be used, otherwise I'm not sure that this particular image, while it would look great on the Main Page, is appropriate. I have made some minor tweaks to the hook. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Also note that, because this is an example of two-dimensional medieval art, it should not be hard to find a public domain photograph of such a girih under the PD-Art doctrine. For two-dimensional art in the public domain, faithful representations such as photographs are also always in the public domain, no matter where they are published. (See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the references, and added to the article a public-domain picture of a girih with quasi-crystalline tiling pattern, also shown here (right). I think the original image should be fine as 1) the proposed image is supposed to be about the article itself, not necessarily the hook, 2) IMO, it is graphically more appealing. Nevertheless, if others think differently I won't argue. --İnfoCan (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how about this hook with the original picture:

ALT1: ... that girih tiling patterns used by medieval Islamic artisans (example pictured) in some cases exhibited quasicrystalline tiling, five centuries before Penrose tilings were discovered in Europe?

Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the original hook is more concise, gives the same meaning. --İnfoCan (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Slightly, but the alt hook makes it clear that the image is not quasicrystalline. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

ALT1 fine with me too then. --İnfoCan (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Approved: ALT1 with the blue picture, or else the original hook without a picture. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this article may too closely follow the structure and phrasing of this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten or deleted the sentences that were too closely paraphrased. I also expanded the article some more. --İnfoCan (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the version now, I think it is fine - the emphasis of the two pieces is actually rather different. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

ok to go with ALT1. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)