Talk:Articulation (painting)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 16:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 08:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one, expect initial remarks in 24-48 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a glance; some moderate sized issues, but nothing that cannot be fixed, especially for such a short article. I'll list some of them right now.

Lead

with a tree branch behind her.: Her back is facing us, so isn't it in front of her? Done

Careless paraphrasing amended!

Should have no citations in the lead section Done
Expand the lead, but that can be done after the body is expanded.

Background

Uglow would use markings in his studio ...: Reword this sentence, not clear at first glance Done

Amended, hopefully for the better.

~~Give some info about Lisa Coleman, and how she came upon Uglow~~

I couldn't find any info detailing this.

~~How did Uglow get the idea to make it?~~

~~Pending, will have another look at sources.~~
I don't think there's anything for sources to add here.

Expand section in general, add more sentences/ have a greater proportion of sentences/ref.

Are there any obvious sources that I've missed? (See below for where I looked.) I can add more "general" background about Uglow and his methods, but I don't think that much more can be said here relating to Articulation specifically.

Yeah, if there isn't anything, add some general background- why did he painted with these methods(like if it can't be traced to this painting specifically, then add stuff for why he would draw this specific nude) Done

Painting

Fourth para is great
~~Para 1: How is the graphite on paper different? How did it help Uglow in making it with oil on canvas?~~

I couldn't find any info in sources about this; I looked at all three of the sources mentioned under "literature" in the Catalogue raisonné entry, plus in Wikipedia Library, newspaper archives, and Internet Archive books. Please let me know if you find any relevant sources I missed. The Catalogue for the 2024 exhibition has only basic details.

~~Para 2: clarify, is this quote why he named it articulation?~~

~~Pending... will need to re-read some sources.~~
No info in sources on this.

Background (1964–65) one: Background (1964–65) as one; remove the extra period before the reference

Done.

Add "as" unless that's correct grammar? Done

Added.

Para-3: Expand on the journey from that painting to this- must be more than one sentence?

Again, I didn't find any info in sources about this.

[1] This can be used to expand Lisa's experience, I think Done

and that, despite being naked, she felt fully comfortable, due to "being viewed in a completely different way from how society normally judges the female form"., add this or something like to the last para of "Painting"? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, BennyOnTheLoose? 18:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articulation was started in 1993 and finished in 1996.[1] It measures 43.8 cm high by 89.5 cm wide.[1]: Axe, info already in infobox, add links there for year and dimensions

My reading of MOS:INFOBOXCITE is that it's better to have the info in text, but I'll amend this if you disagree.

make them phrases instead of sentences then, something like- Articulation, painted from 1993 to 1996, and measuring ... Done

Amended.

Para-4: The 2007 Catalogue Raisonné for Uglow shows the work as belonging to Douglas Woolf.[1]: What does this mean?

The Catalogue raisonné (maybe this phrase needs explanation in text?) shows it as owned by Douglas Woolf. He is a private collector, although that is not mentioned in the book, and is a bit hard to source (but see here and here. I used the form of words I did as 2007 was a while ago and I don't have any more recent source.

Make that clear in the article?

Added a very brief description of Woolf. Done

~~Add another para, how did he feel making it, how did she feel modeling, changes, developments etc in the 3 years?~~

I'd love to, but I didn't see any further detail in source (apart from a brief comment by Coleman).

Painting

Actress Lisa Coleman was modelling ... among other television appearances.[18]: This should be in background, I think. Done
Coleman recalled travelling ...: If you do the above change, make this Coleman, new to modelling, recalled travelling ...

Done.

Critical Reception

~~Is the Daily Telegraph reliable? (I might be wrong, but I think there was a discussion on something like it)~~

The list at WP:RSP shows it generally reliable (excluding transgender topics), with some reservations having been expressed about its coverage of politics.

Begin with a paragraph summarising what was liked and disliked; before the explanation in the already present prose? Also, add it to the lead too- it'll be good to emphasis why it and Uglow recieved positive reviews.

Added a brief para; I'm not sure much more can be drawn out of the few reviews available. Will add to lead once confirmed. Done(yes, go ahead, add to lead too)

Exhibitions

What does "study" mean in an exhibition context? Done

I've added a word and a link; let me know if more is needed.

~~Can the list be expanded into prose? Or are the references just saying it was present there, and nothing else?~~

I know prose is generally preferred, but this really would be just those details, which I don't think would be an improvement.

Spot-check

Checking every 6th ref in general

Ref-1: I came to regard as a close friend
Ref-8: pockmarked by little crosses and dashes
Ref-13: 1977, along with ref-14: began her career
Ref-19: also appears in articulation ... It is in another picture
Ref-23: Downstairs by the Kitchen Table ... Upstairs, there are four different stations
Ref-30: Kendal 2003, no 38, col}... The Enduring Image

Overall

References look great; will remark on critical reception later, BennyOnTheLoose. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will need to do a deep dive into references, before making any more remarks, BennyOnTheLoose; the article looks very incomplete-ish. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester 1997 is on EBSCO in the Wikipedia Library. Packer 1997 and Euan Uglow: the Complete Paintings: Catalogue Raisonné are on archive.org which unfortunately is not accessible at the moment. (I can email you a copy of the Catalogue Raisonné page for Articulation as I took a photo from a hard copy, but I don't have all the other pages cited immediately available.) The HHH catalogue is only used to verify the 2024 exhibition. I think eerything else is easily accessible online. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will check/ask for them later, let's fix the prose and content issues first. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Going to assume good faith, as everything else seems fine~~

Spoke too soon, they really are cited a lot; but found them elsewhere. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gave more remarks, BennyOnTheLoose, will check the references, and search the internet for more, tomorrow. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did that, references fine, nothing more on the net. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to you, BennyOnTheLoose. Only minor issues remain, putting on hold. Ping when done. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose, just a teensy bit left, left it in the "Painting" section. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a bit of liberty and expanded a sentence, I hope you are okay with that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose, I'm passing the article. Well done, the article was well-written, and your edits and replies to the review were good too. Congratulations, keep up the good work! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·