Talk:Funerary art/GA1

GA Review On Hold

Hey there, I'm here to review your article for GA. First: this is a well-written article, congratulations to all of the researchers and writers. In my opinion, it is just the right length for the subject and does not delve into too-much detail. Overall, a good job has been done. I am placing the article on hold as the issues I am going to raise below are all minor and shouldn't take more than 7 days to address.

Also, this article gets bonus points for mentioning menhirs which makes me think of Obelix!

First, the boring checklist:

1. Wellwritten: Prose is scintillating without going into over-detail. Good job.
   1. MOS: Y Close. I did a bit of minor copyediting, but more needs to be done, really just a once-over with an eye for flow and style. Otherwise, a great job.
2. Factually Accurate: As fas as I can tell, you're good here!
   1. Citations: Y Generally good, although more are required. Some of the claims require an inline citation, for example: "Humanity's oldest known archaeological constructions are tombs." (I put {{fact}} tags on the claims I believe would benefit from a citation.

Many of these are things fully covered in the articles on the subject just mentioned. In a survey article like this, I don't believe it is possible or necessary to reference everything that is covered in more detailed articles. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just 1 left (Pre-Columbian). Maunaus? Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See below - more research confirmed this was correct as a generalization, but I could not find a source directly saying so for the whole continent; if anyone knows one, please add. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag, because you're right, I may have been too strict for FA. I re-read the GA guidelines and as long as the main claims are cited, it's fine. My personal pref is for more cites, but, helas, those aren't the guidelines.... Lazulilasher (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Broad in CoverageY I notice that Islam and Christianity are mentioned. However, I see no note of Judaism burial practices. Perhaps I missed it, but I think Judaism should be mentioned.

The article is not about burial practices, but funerary art, not really a Jewish speciality. Since many other religious groups are covered, I think demanding coverage of Jewish art smacks of WP:UNDUE, and is not really taking a worldwide view. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I was only curious and it seemed reasonable to me. I had no idea that it wasn't a Jewish specialty. Thanks for clarifying. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Stable Yep.
2. Images:Y Ok, I don't think I would fail it for this, but generally, it is recommended to have about 1 image per section, so I think you could do a bit of pruning, if you'd like. Also, this doesn't have a license tag...

As a print from the 18th century, it is PD-Old. This is an art article, so pictures are more than usually necessary. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It it is tagged now (maybe it was yesterday and I didn't notice?). As I said, I've always heard the 1 image/section recommendation-but it is not a guideline--so, if you, the writers, see fit to have more that's OK Lazulilasher (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the tag - should have mentioned it. Even at FA, art articles usually have as many images as will fit. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Overall: On hold All comments above are minor, generally this article is very good. Passed. Issues were either attended to or discussed. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's it! Again, this is great work. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to leave them here or on my talk page (I'm watching this page, so it's no concern!). Lazulilasher (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's germane to 'Good Article' criteria, but I think that this article, and most "survey" articles like this, lack cohesion. That is, they are essentially descriptive lists -- there is no framework or theme or progression within the article. After a short introduction, the article describes culture after culture in isolated sections. Even within these culture sections, the prose can seem list-like.

I realize that Original Research is a no-no, but we could certainly compare how different cultures approached funerary art, etc. My 2¢, Madman (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The difficulties with doing that in an article this size are discussed above. Really you need much more space (and knowledge), or cross-cultural comparisons are just misleading. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, researching to try & fill the last fact tag (unsuccessfully) reminded me how reluctant professional academics are to make such broad comparisons, even across just the range of Pre-Columbian art, let alone globally. It might be different for burial customs, an anthropological field, but for art I believe it would be really difficult to reference a cross-cultural approach. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought it was fairly cohesive. I approached this subject with no knowledge or background and I do feel that I learned something and that it was an interesting read. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm scrambling to find cites for the various {{fact}} tags, but after some reflection I've decided to simply remove one, after: "Like mourning clothes these fall outside a strict definition of art." the reason I rmvd it is because.. I think it would be difficult if not impossible to find a cite that says something isn't a kind of something else, for example "An apple is not a vegetable." Ling.Nut (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; plus this isn't fashion, just clothing. The other one was coats of arms, which are standardized designs kept simple for copying by craftsmen and signwriters. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. True, the GA criteria doesn't require the article to be lock-tight referenced and the criteria are meant to be interpreted in different manners. I tend to prefer to see more inline citations, but the the article does have an extensive bibliography and IS generally well-sourced, so I think we're fine -- although the "oldest known archaeological constructions are tombs" should probably be referenced (although, the claim does seems reasonable to me). Thanks for the copyediting. Anyway, the edits look good and as I said in the review, the article IS well-done. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt & fair review & responses! Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)