This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
"Description" has four short paragraphs. At the end of the fourth is the sole reference. The fourth reads: "Similar ewers can be seen at the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington and at Abgineh Museum of Tehran". As the reference is in English and I am, deplorably, a near-monoglot, I thought I'd take a look. It (JSTOR43489776) is an academic article about something at the Freer Gallery. I haven't read it, but I did get Firefox to search within it for "Louvre". The string only appears once, in footnote 14, attached to A bronze censer from Egypt has a single eagle on the top,[14] although it is possible that this one was made for and used in a Coptic Christian, rather than an Islamic, context. It's about the Louvre's item with the accession number E 11798 (this, I suppose). But this draft is about what its photo at Commons identifies as MAO 442 (ARK ID 010320160). So what, exactly, is the paper by Nees being used for in the draft? And what are the sources for the rest of the "Description"? -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary, Hi.Your precise attention to Wikipedia articles is admirable. I got interested in this article because it was about a topic from my own country. I translated the article exactly from the same article in the French wiki, fr:Aiguière à tête de coq. I later realized that the French article in many places, including Description, does not have any sources, so I had to search myself, and the source I put there was what I found in google.
I have now added three sources. Do I have to do anything else? or it is good now? Thank you for your attention to my work. Alex-h (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alex-h, I've had a similar experience. I thought an article on a particular subject was needed, found one on that subject that seemed reasonably good in French-language Wikipedia, translated it (in places, grievously mistranslated it), and only then realized that the original had problems I'd previously avoided noticing. I then had to change quite a lot. As for Ewer with the head of a rooster, it's much better now, thank you, and so I "accepted" it. One obvious area for improvement, though, is the way the references are presented. Web references should normally specify the author(s) (if they are named on the web page), the website, the date (if it's shown on the web page), and the access date. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
