This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Khalili Collection of Islamic Art article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Khalili Collection of Islamic Art appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 June 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, it's a bit of a shock to see an article of this quality having a "Primary" tag slapped on it, but on inspection it's plainly correct -- a large number of the sources are commissioned by Khalili and are thus not independent.
On a closer look, the reason for that becomes apparent: most of the article is descriptive of the collection, i.e. "this is what it contains", and that can hardly help being primary.
What is missing, therefore, is not just secondary sources per se, but secondary accounts and analysis of the collection's value, purpose, implementation, issues, relationships to other collections, and matters of that kind. Those would naturally fall into one or more separate sections which might be headed "Reception" or "Scholarly analysis". Such sources are what Wikipedia takes as demonstrating notability, WP:N; I am not about to slap a Notability tag on the article, but the text is at the moment, er, notable for its paucity of reliable secondary and tertiary sources, so that's the issue. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other.
The "third-party" sources you cite seem to me to do very little to further the impression that the article is balanced and neutral. For instance, refs 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 may be penned by third parties, but all they do is report what Khalili has said or done, without independent comment. Refs 3, 4, 5, and 6 seem to say the collection is "important" and "comprehensive" (whatever that is) without adding anything to the adjectives; Ref 26 is used to say there is a specific folio in the collection, i.e. it's again purely a description of what is there, without third-party comment. There is a pattern here, no? Let's look at one or two more, just to check: 103, 104, and 105 are again purely descriptive; 106 offers praise from Apollo, at least independent thought, though a little more (critical?) detail would be useful. On clearing the WP:GNG, yes, the article has some non-Khalili sources so it passes that (extremely low) molehill; that doesn't make it non-primary or balanced, however.
As for ref 108, I added it, so thanks for citing it back to me; your adding 107 is however an improvement to the reception section, and the right direction for the article: more of that is what is needed. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
On the lists, since you insist, I personally think they do nothing for the article; I normally remove such things from article's I'm working on, either deleting them or splitting them off as list articles on the off-chance that anyone will want to read them. My personal view is that despite the very weak statements in policy, list items should be cited like anything else; after all, if anyone can add an uncited list item, how do we verify it's not nonsense? i.e. WP:V says that the statements in other policies about lists don't make a lot of sense, really. If you like, I can say I'm challenging your lists under WP:V, and then you're mandated to cite them. Or if you like, don't mention it, and I won't either.
There remains a very strong primary feeling to this article. If there are so many independent voices, where is all the criticism? Most of the non-Khalili sources remain purely descriptive, so they may be independent, and some of them may even be scholarly, but they are being terribly quiet at the moment. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
05:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Note that a small portion of this article (the lists under Exhibitions and Publications) is copied from an existing document but this is allowed as it is free content. The source document has a CC-BY-3.0 licence and an attribution template is included at the top of the References section.
Moved to mainspace by
MartinPoulter (
talk). Self-nominated at
16:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC).
Could we get some accurate location as to where these collections are located. Seems like a major gap in the article. Thanks! Hoktiwe ( talk) 04:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 14 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dana-11223 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by A-zheng97 ( talk) 23:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Dana-11223 Hi, I've undone this edit that you made to the article. On Wikipedia, we don't make recommendations or interpretations like "It is important to understand...", just description. We also need to take care to use proper spelling and grammar. I recommend finding something that a third party has said about the collection and summarising that. Best wishes, MartinPoulter ( talk) 10:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Khalili Collection of Islamic Art article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Khalili Collection of Islamic Art appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 June 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, it's a bit of a shock to see an article of this quality having a "Primary" tag slapped on it, but on inspection it's plainly correct -- a large number of the sources are commissioned by Khalili and are thus not independent.
On a closer look, the reason for that becomes apparent: most of the article is descriptive of the collection, i.e. "this is what it contains", and that can hardly help being primary.
What is missing, therefore, is not just secondary sources per se, but secondary accounts and analysis of the collection's value, purpose, implementation, issues, relationships to other collections, and matters of that kind. Those would naturally fall into one or more separate sections which might be headed "Reception" or "Scholarly analysis". Such sources are what Wikipedia takes as demonstrating notability, WP:N; I am not about to slap a Notability tag on the article, but the text is at the moment, er, notable for its paucity of reliable secondary and tertiary sources, so that's the issue. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other.
The "third-party" sources you cite seem to me to do very little to further the impression that the article is balanced and neutral. For instance, refs 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 may be penned by third parties, but all they do is report what Khalili has said or done, without independent comment. Refs 3, 4, 5, and 6 seem to say the collection is "important" and "comprehensive" (whatever that is) without adding anything to the adjectives; Ref 26 is used to say there is a specific folio in the collection, i.e. it's again purely a description of what is there, without third-party comment. There is a pattern here, no? Let's look at one or two more, just to check: 103, 104, and 105 are again purely descriptive; 106 offers praise from Apollo, at least independent thought, though a little more (critical?) detail would be useful. On clearing the WP:GNG, yes, the article has some non-Khalili sources so it passes that (extremely low) molehill; that doesn't make it non-primary or balanced, however.
As for ref 108, I added it, so thanks for citing it back to me; your adding 107 is however an improvement to the reception section, and the right direction for the article: more of that is what is needed. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
On the lists, since you insist, I personally think they do nothing for the article; I normally remove such things from article's I'm working on, either deleting them or splitting them off as list articles on the off-chance that anyone will want to read them. My personal view is that despite the very weak statements in policy, list items should be cited like anything else; after all, if anyone can add an uncited list item, how do we verify it's not nonsense? i.e. WP:V says that the statements in other policies about lists don't make a lot of sense, really. If you like, I can say I'm challenging your lists under WP:V, and then you're mandated to cite them. Or if you like, don't mention it, and I won't either.
There remains a very strong primary feeling to this article. If there are so many independent voices, where is all the criticism? Most of the non-Khalili sources remain purely descriptive, so they may be independent, and some of them may even be scholarly, but they are being terribly quiet at the moment. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
05:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Note that a small portion of this article (the lists under Exhibitions and Publications) is copied from an existing document but this is allowed as it is free content. The source document has a CC-BY-3.0 licence and an attribution template is included at the top of the References section.
Moved to mainspace by
MartinPoulter (
talk). Self-nominated at
16:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC).
Could we get some accurate location as to where these collections are located. Seems like a major gap in the article. Thanks! Hoktiwe ( talk) 04:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 14 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dana-11223 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by A-zheng97 ( talk) 23:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Dana-11223 Hi, I've undone this edit that you made to the article. On Wikipedia, we don't make recommendations or interpretations like "It is important to understand...", just description. We also need to take care to use proper spelling and grammar. I recommend finding something that a third party has said about the collection and summarising that. Best wishes, MartinPoulter ( talk) 10:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)