Talk:Maggie Laubser/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this article so I can look at the beautiful art work! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Beginning comment

• Before I do a thorough review of this article, I need to ask about the references.

• Berman, Esmé (2010). Art and Artists of South Africa. Cape Town: G3 Publishers. pp. 376–379. ISBN 9781868123452. (ref 1)

• Latest publish is 1999 as far as I can determine.

• Schutte, Jan. Die Wêreld van Maggie Laubser, 1972. Radio. What is Radio? (ref 8)
• Laubser, Maggie. Dit is my Kontrei, 21 February 1956. Radio.What is Radio? (ref 9}
• Die Burger, 2 September 1948, p. 12 - not enough info to identify this publication (ref 10)
• need page numbers for books.

Early life

• Could some dates be added early on so the reader can follow a time line? (the first one is 1901)
• what is a "realistic romantic style painter"?
• Could some context be added about who Edward Roworth is? and why it was important to be introduced to him?
• what was her style of painting during this period?

Holland and England

• too filled with dates and places where she lived. This seems like trivial detail, when it could be said "in London she moved several times" or something. There isn't mention of her work or how various persons she met influenced her work.
• When people are mentioned, it would help to have some context provided so the reader can have some idea of their importance to her life.

South African debut and critical reception

• "atrociously unattractive landscapes, in which not one colour, not one shape...has any similitude with nature!" - all quotes need to be directly cited.

General comment

• Do you think all those red links will have articles?
• I may be making more comments.

MathewTownsend (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Congratulations! Nicely done. I made a few edits since your last one. Please check for errors of fact.[1] Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)