Talk:Skagen Painters

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Skagen Painters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 00:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 00:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

After first read-through (for grammar and spelling and such basics) only one comment, viz that in Christian Krogh, Oslo is unlinked at first mention but is linked immediately below from a blue-link "Olso" (sic). Please consider. Back after a final read-through shortly, but it's looking very good, Tim riley talk 19:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Oslo wls now fixed.--Ipigott (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if my brain had been working last night I'd have suggested – and now do – that Oslo doesn't need a link at all. WP:OVERLINK bids us avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, and a capital city must surely come under that heading. My apologies for shilly-shallying. Tim riley talk 16:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• General
  • You have too many duplicate links in the main body of the text. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary – and I don't see any – you should unlink the duplicate links to Karl Madsen, Marie Krøyer, the Anchers, Christian Krohg, Georg Brandes (who is linked five times, I think), Holger Drachmann, Hugo Alfvén, Impressionist, Frederikshavn, Frits Thaulow, Royal Academy, and Berlin (which shouldn't be linked at all in my view, though I don't press the point).
• Lead
  • The manual of style bids us avoid saying anything in the lead that isn't covered in the main text, and the ridigity of the two Royal Academies mentioned here isn't covered below.
  • "Although the painters each had their own individual styles" – this gets into rather a tangle of singular and plural. Removing the "each" would leave the meaning perfectly clear while untangling the syntax.
  • Parenthetic dashes: the MoS prescribes either an en dash with spaces on each side or an em dash with no spaces. You have a spaced em dash in the last para of the lead, which you should amend.
• History
  • "the history painter Peter Raadsig" – being unsure what a "history painter" might be I clicked on the blue link, and now I know. But in general it isn't ideal to lead your readers into clicking out of your article and into another. You might like to reword slightly.
  • "that poet and dramatist Holger Drachmann" – here we come to one the bees in my bonnet, and this is merely a comment and not at all a stipulation – in good British English the false title (also known by the grand name "anarthrous nominal premodifier") is not used; it is accepted usage in American English but in BrEng is best left to the tabloid newspapers. The insertion of a definite article before "poet" would do the trick. There are later examples, as well; poor old Alfvén is "Swedish composer Hugo Alfvén" twice, and so on.
  • "Anna's confirmation" – readers not from a Christian background may wonder what was being confirmed. A blue link to confirmation would do nicely.
  • "often enjoying wine and champagne" – I didn't get to the shape I am today without knowing, after much practical investigation, that champagne is a wine.
• Family relationships
  • "the little girl in Hip, hip, hurrah!" – but at its first mention the title is capitalised throughout.
• Anna Ancher
  • "Her most cherished works include Pigen i køkknet (Girl in the Kitchen, 1886)..." – you aren't consistent about titles: we're in Danish here with English translations, but earlier Men of Skagen on a Summer Evening in Fair Weather and View over Skagen are given only the English titles. There is some inconsistency of capitalisation of titles, as well: e.g. the first and third of Krøyer's key works are in title case, but the middle one isn't.
• Michael Ancher
  • "by his student friend Karl Madsen" – ambiguous. Were they friends from college days or was Madsen still a student? (Careful readers will already know which, but it's best to avoid even a theoretical ambiguity.)
• P.S. Krøyer
  • "Hugo Alfvén" – you tell us for the third time here that he was a Swedish composer. Overkill, surely?
• Carl Locher
  • No obvious reason to deny Léon Bonnat a blue link here. You can then remove the link from the Laurits Tuxen section.
• Christian Krohg
  • "Depicting a fisherman at sea, his Babord litt (1879) is considered to be one of his early masterpieces" – says who?
• Styles of painting
  • "Although the painters each had their own individual styles" – as I mention above, this gets into a tangle of singular and plural. In passing, I prefer not to repeat sentences from the lead word for word in the main text, but as far as I know it is not forbidden or even discouraged in the manual of style. Up to you.
• Skagen's Museum
  • Header: an apostrophe has suddenly appeared, following mention earlier of the "Skagens Museum". And to complicate matters further, the hatnote refers to "Skagen Museum" with no "s" at the end of the first word.
  • "and artists Michael Ancher, P. S. Krøyer and Laurits Tuxen" – quite apart from the false title here, do we really need to be told at this stage that Ancher and co were artists? Or, for Krøyer and Tuxen at any rate, to have their given names (or initials) repeated?
  • "with an annex drafted by the Royal Surveyor" – I suppose "drafted" is correct, but it looks a bit odd to me. Perhaps "designed"? Just a suggestion.
• Films
  • "the 1987 film Hip Hip Hurra! … after the painting with the same name" – But it isn't quite the same name: it has an "h" on the end at earlier mentions.

There's nothing in the above catalogue of quibbles that is anything like important enough to impede the promotion of this fine (and very enjoyable) article to GA except, I think, the matter of the duplicate links, which is a serious enough breach of the WP manual of style to require remedying before I observe the formalities of declaring the article a GA. Perhaps you'd do the necessary and I'll then proceed. Tim riley talk 16:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up all these points. I agree with everything you mention and have tried to make all necessary corrections. It's been a very useful exercise and has certainly improved the quality of the article. I'll now try to go through the whole thing once more to see if I've have overlooked anything.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   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:

   Well illustrated.

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

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This has been a most enjoyable article to review, and I am very pleased to declare it a GA. The visual arts are not my area of expertise, but to my layman's eye the article looks remarkably like an FA. If you take it to FAC please let me know. Tim riley talk 09:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tim for the quick review and comments!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)