Talk:Han van Meegeren/GA1
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
See my remarks on the fulfillment of the criteria below --Primasz (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
- b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
A large number of paragraphs are unreferenced. I have paced citation needed tags. ref #5 [1], and ref #18 [2] are dead.Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Done
- b (citations to reliable sources):
- appear reliable
- c (OR):
Some sections need references as noted above
- a (references):
- It is broad in its scope.
- a (major aspects):
- b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
This is an interesting artcile, the flaws are the dead links and the lack of referncing parts. On hold. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)- OK, I am happy to say that this article deserves to keep its GA status. Thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
Checking against AG criteria: an answer
[edit]Dear editor: Although I agree in general there are, however, a few points to be made:
about point 3: broad in scope. That's true. Howevere, there is one section that oversteps the scope. That is the section "The Carnegie Mellon examination". This examination proved a point in the Van Meegeren case that had already been proven twice by the Dutch judicature. The text is therefore not needed for the article and could possbly scare the reader with its highly technical language. My proposal is to strike this section, the result will be a shorter and clearer article (and not less accurate).
about point 4: neutral point of view.
The heading of the section "To my believed Fuhrer" is too suggestive and does not represent the neutral character of Wikipedia.
I would rather replace this with a more balanced text as follows, see between >> <<
>> ===How “wrong” was Van Meegeren during the war?===
In occupied Holland people were sharply divided. The majority of the population, loyal to the country and to their Queen, strongly distrusted the Nazi-following minority. People were labeled either “goed” or “fout”, meaning “right” or “wrong”; there was no middle road. In accordance with this sharp division Han van Meegeren fell just on the wrong side of the line. Although he was not a Nazi and did not endorse their doctrines, he flirted with the officials of the Nazi-infested Ministry of Culture because he wanted to display his art at exhibitions.
Although one might rightly consider Han van Meegeren’s behavior during the war as “wrong”, in the larger scheme of things he did no evil. He did not betray or thwart anyone.
Nor was he anti-Semitic, despite rumors about purported anti-Semitic sentiments. These rumors can be traced back to an art-historian (M.H. Van den Brandhof, 1979) who had suggested that one of van Meegeren’s large drawings (Corn, Oil and Cotton) was an anti-Semitic pastiche. However, a detailed study of the drawing revealed no anti-Jewish symbols at all.
Another sensitive topic involves the large book of drawings that was found in the headquarters of Adolf Hitler, with the hand-written dedication Dem geliebten Führer in dankbarer Anerkennung gewidmet followed by the signature H. van Meegeren.
Han protested his innocence, pointing out that many of his books were sold with his handwritten signature on the front page. He argued that a Nazi customer could well have bought such a copy, added the dedication and sent it to Adolf Hitler. Investigations by handwriting experts yielded no decisive answers as some stated that the handwriting was Han’s, others that is was not.
Whatever the case, if Han had indeed sent a copy to Hitler it would have been the most stupid thing he ever did in his life. On the other hand, if he was innocent, he was now being well punished for having consorted with Nazi officials.
We can conclude that although Han van Meegeren’s behavior during the war was neither prudent nor admirable - not “right” as perceived at that time by his compatriots - his conduct was certainly not that of a fascist or an anti-Semite. <<
The opinion that Van Meegeren was a Nazi-follower or an anti-Semite is highly controversial and should not be fought out here. Therefore my proposal for a far more neutral point of view.
about point 5: Stable (no editing wars)This is related to the above. I would have liked to strike the suggestions of pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic earlier but I didn't like to start an editing war. But now you're asking me in this discussion, I give you my opinion here. (I lived in Holland during the war and know the situation at that time). I'll apreciate to hear your answer.
--Primasz (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, I will bear them in mind and perhaps the major contributors to this article will, if they ever turn up. They have been notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added the requested citations, and updated and removed the dead links you mentioned. WRT the "Fuhrer" section, I have tried a bit of a compromise by removing some of the leading statements for a bit of neutrality, but we can't really be sure what van Meegeren was thinking or whether he even really wrote the inscription, so I think it is best left a bit vague. Please let me know if you find my changes sufficient. Best--DO11.10 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)