Talk:Migration of the Serbs (painting)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 11:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this nomination. — Calvin999 11:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: Not trying to rush you or anything, but I was curious as to when this review was going to start. 23 editor (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to it in the next few days. — Calvin999 21:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've taken so long. I will complete this tomorrow. — Calvin999 11:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link Habsburg
230 by 150 in) → inches
Wouldn't you use 'x' instead of 'by'?
inclined → Not sure this is the best word to use. Perhaps even remove it altogether
I feel that the lead is too detailed and pretty much covers the rest of the article, this making the rest sound repetitive. For an article of this length, the lead should not be this long, and should be a summary. I'd say that two paragraphs, no more than three or four lines long each, would be more than satisfactory.
If the picture is one of four, are they not images available for the others?
Link Belgrade
Link Budapest
Link cities and countries the first time you use them.

I'm really sorry for how lapse I have been in reviewing this nomination. It is really well written and it's interesting. I shouldn't have taken this long. Thanks for your more than generous patience. — Calvin999 19:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose issues addressed . To answer your questions, 1) I use "in" instead of "inches" since that's the format other art articles usually go with. If it's a deal breaker for you, I can adjust it. 2) WP:UNIT states: "Length–width, length–width–height and similar dimensions may be separated by the multiplication sign (×}}) or the word by". I've found that other art-related articles usually use "by" in prose and captions, and "×" in the infobox, but since this doesn't have an infobox... 3) There are three versions still in existence, one is lost (no photographs as far as I'm aware). The photo in the article is of the second version. I can add the first one (PD 1896), but I'm not sure if the fourth version is PD since it was composed in 1945.

Anyway, thanks for the review. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. 23 editor (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. — Calvin999 08:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]