Talk:Batik/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 07:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC) I'll be happy to take on this interesting article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	completed full copy-edit.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead:ok (maybe still rather short) layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	ok
	2c. it contains no original research.	More citations are needed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	ok
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	ok
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	ok
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	ok
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	ok
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All gallery images need captions explaining what they are.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article has been considerably revised during this GA review, and is now clearly above the minimum standard required. It is pleasing that the stimulus of the review has caused the article to be brought up to standard, but by the same token it was definitely not of the required standard when initially presented, lacking both in coverage and in citations. Further improvement will document variations of technique and styles around Indonesia and elsewhere, and will seek to describe the history and cross-cultural influences in more detail.

Comments

• The pronunciation of 'cap' and 'canting' need to be shown. These are still spelt 'tjap, tjanting' by Western suppliers of batik equipment. e.g. Dharma Trading (CA) - there are plenty more. So I think a brief mention that these were the old Indonesian spellings, influenced by Dutch, and the pronunciation is 'Chap, Chanting' (guess you'll have to use the IPA notation) is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• The gallery images are rather too large, and need to have captions that both justify their inclusion and explain what they are. It would be helpful to wikilink technical terms and placenames in such captions (even if already linked in the article).

• The table seems very plain at the moment. Would suggest a small image in a 4th column of the table to show the nature of the influence; and should wikilink the many places and technical terms in the table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• There aren't separate articles for cap, canting so these and other tools need to be illustrated, captioned and explained here. The 'Technique' section needs to be extended (considerably) to make it clear what processes are involved, but steering clear of 'how to do it' detail.

• The names of some of the more famous patterns e.g. the coffee bean batik, the parang rusak (broken sword), etc, need to be shown and ideally illustrated. I may be able to upload some images if you need them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the nominator asked some questions of the GA reviewer here.