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

I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, many thanks for the effort to improve this article.

Two critical items remain from the previous GAN:

• There are quite a few apparently uncited statements, such as paragraphs that end without a ref.

• Several citations to books do not have page references: they all need 'em.

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although glass is generally corrosion-resistant[69] and more corrosion resistant than other materials," needs rephrasing.

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Other properties - paragraph on tensile strength should mention glass fibre, explaining briefly why it is so strong.

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Soda-lime-silicate glass is transparent, easily formed, and most suitable for window glass (see flat glass) and tableware.[85][86][87][88][89][90] - why does this simple statement need six citations? And the (see flat glass) needs to go.

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Glass art section should have a gallery like the other sections with a small number of images chosen to illustrate the range of types of glass art discussed - I see Cameo glass, Art Nouveau, Tiffany, glass sculpture, installation art, "use of stained glass" (in modern art, presumably) and so on, so all those should be represented.

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Glass art: also missing is discussion and illustration of "vitreous enamels" which are mentioned in the lead and in "lead glass" but not explained anywhere. We ought to have examples at least of Cloisonné and Champlevé enamels as major techniques, of course there are many others.

• The paragraph on Waterford crystal ... Depression glass seems out of place in Glass art as it is about tableware. Same goes for the following paragraph about bowls, vases, bottles, except for the brief mention of sculpture and installation art: i.e. the section must be focused on "Glass art". I suggest you read that article and ensure that what we have here is a brief precis of it, suitably cited. By the way, why do we have both "Glass art" and "Art glass"? They seem to be substantial WP:FORKs. Anyway, for this GAN you need to summarize all the "Main articles" in this section.

 Comment: Glass art, Art glass, and Studio glass all seem to be content forks. Polyamorph (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Talking of which ... there isn't a section on Tableware, nor even a more general one on Uses, which would include tableware, window glass, insulators, enamelled baths and so forth. This does seem necessary: it will obviously be a bit of a "link farm", and it should therefore be in "summary style" written as a brief overview of the many existing articles on all the relevant topics, richly linked and briefly cited to general sources.

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Behaviour of antique glass" seems a bit out of place: I think it is essentially an aside or footnote to "Physical properties". It's interesting but a bit verbose; I suggest it be moved and shortened a bit under a heading on "supposed flow" or something of that sort. The last sentence doesn't belong at all and is uncited, so we can file that under "R".

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Museums" doesn't seem to fit here at all. Since it's a sub-heading of "Glass art" I'd suggest it belongs in that article, i.e. we chop it.

 Done (section already exists in Glass art. Polyamorph (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The gallery in the "Colour" section needs to be chosen to illustrate the section, i.e. we should have examples of Sulphur-tinged yellow glass, Iron II and Chromium III green glass, etc. Clearly Cobalt can produce blue, so that needs to be mentioned and cited in the text. i.e. text and gallery should match and should make "the main points" per the GA criteria. So, how d'you make red glass? - example and ref, please.

 Comment: with images we are limited by what is available in commons. I have added some new images and explanation, hopefully this is good enough? Polyamorph (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's splendid, a huge improvement in clarity and simplicity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 147 is to Lulu, a self-published source: needs replacing.

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Colloidal glasses" is basically off-topic for this article as the matter is at best "glass-like". Perhaps "Colloid" is a See also item.

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is something very wrong with the photo of "Quartz sand". Why not use File:Quartz sand.jpg which looks like what it is.

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is much improved from its previous state, good work. Some material still needs to be cut, and a small amount needs to be developed. Some citations need work. Once that's done, this will be a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Chiswick Chap: I'll start working through your comments, starting with the low hanging fruit. What is the timescale for this to be done? Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Officially it's a week, but let me know if you need longer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a couple of papers IRL at the moment, so it is likely to take me longer than 1 week to address everything. Polyamorph (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Let's aim at 2 weeks then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that will be do-able! Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've no idea about the transclusion tricks. Normally it sets itself up automatically, but I foolishly used the mobile app which of course made a horlicks of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I managed to transclude the page in Talk:Glass, but then it wouldn't allow the review page to be edited by clicking the section edit button. So I reverted myself. I've been working on colour this evening, still a bit more to be done on that section. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been quite busy (at the synchrotron) this week, but hopefully I will have time this weekend to finish the last few parts that need doing. In the meantime I've been doing what I can as and when I get some spare moments. Polyamorph (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Polyamorph (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gone through all the books without page numbers, exhausting work but done now. It is more of less just the Glass art section left now. This is not my area of expertise. I requested assistance at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts but got zero response. I'll appreciate any assistance in this area. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a terrific job. I've copy-edited and added a citation to the art section. The article is now certainly up to the required standard, and immeasurably improved in clarity, accuracy, citation quality, and coverage. Congratulations! There is no quid pro quo at GAN but any help with reviewing an article or two from the queue would be greatly appreciated. --Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Many thanks :) Polyamorph (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]