Talk:Jewellery of the Berber cultures/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
This article is ready for GA and I have only a few small suggestions to make.
- "the women took it along on the annual hikes." Makes it sound like they had fun on the Appalachian Trail. "annual migrations" would be better.
- Done.
- "Paul Eudel ... seems to be the first author" has a faint air of research about it. Perhaps say he was an early author, or one of the first.
- Done.
- "geometrical, floral, animal and "cosmic" forms": you might link Islamic geometric patterns and arabesque here.
- (I guess you have addressed this item with the one below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC))
- You might note (and link) in the image caption that the Khmissa amulet is covered in arabesques.
- As ethnologists and art historians have not commented on these kinds of jewellery as Islamic, and as there are no arabesques in the definition of Islamic art on them, this does not apply to my knowledge.
- Hmm, so why is the image of the Khmissa amulet called a "hand of Fatima" on Commons then? A mistake? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- I added a note on this after the sentence on the pattersn, referring to a number of ethnographic and archaeological studies that relate Berber jewellery to ancient and medieval Mediterranean origins. - To my knowledge, the so-called "Hand of Fatima" is an example of what is known as folk Islamic practices, which are not accepted by religious Muslims, as they believe that Islam scorns superstitions. Anyway, the notion of Islamic art is a concept of Western art history, and not all art products of Muslims are Islamic, just as not all art made by people who were born Christian is Christian art. - Of course, if you know a reliable source that says something about Berber jewellery as Islamic art, I would be interested. User:Munfarid1 (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Good answer. I have no idea who copied from who, but clearly the tradition is shared.
- I added a note on this after the sentence on the pattersn, referring to a number of ethnographic and archaeological studies that relate Berber jewellery to ancient and medieval Mediterranean origins. - To my knowledge, the so-called "Hand of Fatima" is an example of what is known as folk Islamic practices, which are not accepted by religious Muslims, as they believe that Islam scorns superstitions. Anyway, the notion of Islamic art is a concept of Western art history, and not all art products of Muslims are Islamic, just as not all art made by people who were born Christian is Christian art. - Of course, if you know a reliable source that says something about Berber jewellery as Islamic art, I would be interested. User:Munfarid1 (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, so why is the image of the Khmissa amulet called a "hand of Fatima" on Commons then? A mistake? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- As ethnologists and art historians have not commented on these kinds of jewellery as Islamic, and as there are no arabesques in the definition of Islamic art on them, this does not apply to my knowledge.
- Have Berber women completely stopped using traditional jewellery? Do they not use it even, say, for weddings? Maybe we are missing a paragraph here?
- Will be looking for this in the sources. Maybe Tuareg women still do. The other Berbers do not use these kinds any more, only more "fashionable" ones made of gold.
- I have researched and added an example of ongoing use in remote southern Morocco that precedes my earlier paragraph on the practical extinction of this cultural practice of Berber women.- If I find something more about Tuareg tomorrow, I will add it.
- Will be looking for this in the sources. Maybe Tuareg women still do. The other Berbers do not use these kinds any more, only more "fashionable" ones made of gold.
Structure[edit]
- The article has notably long section headings. They'd be better shorter. For instance, "Modern changes in styles of life and production" could just be "Modern changes".
- Actually "Modern changes" is in two parts: the first (up to ref [30] l'Economiste) is a coda, the Berber's declining need for the jewellery, and rightly concludes chapter 1; but the second, about buyers and tourists, is part of "Legacy" where it can form a separate subsection.
- The second part of "Modern changes" could be extended by rewriting the (overlong) note 33 (Besancenot 1953) in the text itself. It's actually core to the article's message: "Berber life flourished: then it declined."
- The article seems to have 2 parts: 1. Use by the Berber 1.1 Context; 1.2. The jewellery itself; 1.3. Modern changes; 2. Legacy: 2.1 Scholarship (that heading needs just one word); 2.2 Museum collections; 2.3 Tourism and private collectors. I suggest you group the "Legacy" headings as subsections.
- According to your suggestions, I have grouped the headings of the first part in subsections and given the main sections new, shorter names. "Use" or "Legacy", however, are general terms that do not really express the content, and I have retained the heading "Methods, forms and importance in society."- Looking forward to your opinion on these changes.
- The point of the short general terms is that they are familiar to readers, assisting their navigation around the article. The current heading remains excessively verbose, slowing the reader down and reducing the article's quality.
- OK, I have just shortened /Methods, forms and society/ and /* Studies by art historians/ and deleted "including gender-related observations". The rest of the captions give important information at a glance, referring to common notions that readers of an article on art history are familiar with. I especially want to make reading easier for the large number of people who use smartphones and the Wikipedia app, where paragraphs are often collapsed and meaningful captions are important for quick navigation. - Honestly, I don't think that these captions are reducing, but rather improving the article's quality, and that we should not underestimate readers of such kinds of articles. - So I hope we can find a consensus based on our respective experience and GA criteria.
- The point of the short general terms is that they are familiar to readers, assisting their navigation around the article. The current heading remains excessively verbose, slowing the reader down and reducing the article's quality.
- According to your suggestions, I have grouped the headings of the first part in subsections and given the main sections new, shorter names. "Use" or "Legacy", however, are general terms that do not really express the content, and I have retained the heading "Methods, forms and importance in society."- Looking forward to your opinion on these changes.
Images[edit]
- File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Halsketting met vijf handjes van Fatima TMnr 5070-2.jpg is perfect but at surprisingly low resolution. Maybe we can get a better image sometime. Not part of GA.
- I deleted this picture for now, allowing more space for the others with better resolution. Maybe I will find another picture to complement this selection.
- I don't think "Gallery" should be a section heading at all. You might instead give the gallery a caption (<gallery caption="Berber jewellery in museum collections">) or something of that kind.
- Done.
- Gallery images are very small and a lot of space is devoted to framing. You might like to consider <gallery mode=nolines heights=185px widths=185px> or something similar.
- Done.
- You might want to say that "Fibulae of the bélier style" denotes French belier, "a ram" (presumably for resemblance to the head and horns).
- Done.
References[edit]
- I note in passing that the inline references do not connect to the "Works cited and further reading" (another long heading). For instance, ref 60 Rouach 1989, pp.12-46 is just a piece of text. But "Rouach1989" is already a citation anchor, so ref 60 could read {{sfn|Rouach|1989|pp=12–46}}, and the ref then connects to the citation.
- Done
- Other refs are not so neatly written, indeed they duplicate or conflict with their respective citations. For instance, you have reference 46 "Eudel, Paul (1902). L'orfévrerie algérienne et tunisienne. University of Michigan. Alger, A. Jourdan.", and a citation "Eudel, Paul (1902). L'orfévrerie algérienne et tunisienne. New edition 2014, Casablanca: Éditions Frontispice, ISBN 978-9954-612-20-0". It would be better to choose one edition to use. Ref 48 has "Eudel (1902), pp. V-XIII" which you could directly "sfn" to the citation, as for Rouach. Same for many others like Besancenot 1942.
- Done. I hope it is correct to cite the first reference to a given article or book in full, and then to use sfn.
- The "first reference in full"? If you mean, put the full citation in the text, well, best not, as you have a list of sources at the end. It's dangerous, too – I've removed two or three duplicate citations.
- Done. I hope it is correct to cite the first reference to a given article or book in full, and then to use sfn.
- By the way, the list of "Works cited" should be after the "Notes and references".
- Done.
- Article still cites Britannica.com - surely we can do better than that.
- Hm, I don't understand why Britannica should not be an excellent and reliable source for such a complex notion as the Berber ethnic groups. - Is there a general rule in WP that we should not use Britannica, or what are your reservations about this?
- It's generally acknowledged that encyclopedias are tertiary sources, like Wikipedia; and that Wikipedia long ago superseded Britannica (which as a result went out of print) in terms of number and quality of articles and depth of citation. It's not forbidden but if it's not deprecated, it should be. You're only relying on it for a minor detail so it'll be the work of a moment to replace, never to be seen again.
- Hm, I don't understand why Britannica should not be an excellent and reliable source for such a complex notion as the Berber ethnic groups. - Is there a general rule in WP that we should not use Britannica, or what are your reservations about this?
- Benfoughal 1993 and Becker 2006 require page numbers. Should check all refs for same problem, it's no good citing an entire book.
- Done
- Note that I have repaired *numerous* (e.g. sfn|Rabaté|Goldenberg|Thau|1999|pp= ) links which were broken.
- No action required.
- Thanks
- No action required.
- There remain multiple sources (in "Further reading", a misnomer) which are not linked: Besancenot 1990, Clarke|Brooks 1996, Göttler|Fritschi 2003, Grammet 1998, Kammerer-Grothaus|Makilam 2015, Loughran 2006, Rabaté 2015, Rabaté 2013, Rabaté|Goldenberg 2004, Rabaté|Rabaté|Champault 1996, Zafrani 1998. All of these should be sfn refs in the text.
- Thanks, will add this soon and change the section to "Literature", if you agree.
- That's fine.
- Done.
- That's fine.
- Thanks, will add this soon and change the section to "Literature", if you agree.
I've sorted out most of the referencing issues. Ref 2, Besancenot 1952, does not resolve to any citation. Could be an error for 1953?
- Yes, it was and I fixed it.
- You have added some hidden comments NOT USED to some of the books in the Literature list. Should I place them in another list "Further reading" so readers can find useful books that I want to recommend for interested readers?
- I've fixed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Summary[edit]
This article is already full of interesting (and sad) historical detail. There is little work needed but I hope the suggestions above will be found helpful in presenting it to readers as clearly as possible. I look forward to your replies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your helpful suggestions and interest. (I saw your article on the Haratin and White Ethiopians, and appreciate your knowledge about the Maghreb.) It would be great, if we could finish this GA process soon, as the article is scheduled to appear on DYK section during the next few days. Munfarid1 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC) =
- Well I'm not keen to be hurried, but given that the citations are now a bit tidier (still way off FAC, if you had ambitions of that sort - much work needed) and the article certainly covers "the main points", I'll leave you to sort out ref 2's citation and close the GA now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again, I have certainly learned something about the best way to format citations and books they refer to. So far, I have not often used sfn, but now see the advantage of them. You have been very helpful and patient, and part of this GA level is thanks to your comments and expertise. Munfarid1 (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well I'm not keen to be hurried, but given that the citations are now a bit tidier (still way off FAC, if you had ambitions of that sort - much work needed) and the article certainly covers "the main points", I'll leave you to sort out ref 2's citation and close the GA now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)