Talk:The World Before the Flood/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Poltair (talk · contribs) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a very nice piece of work that meets the criteria for a Good Article.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article is very well written with clear and concise prose. It exceeds the minimum requirements for adherence to the manual of style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All references are listed and presented correctly. The content was supported by the many inline citations I was able to check, and those citations are from reliable sources. I did not find any original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Whilst dealing fully with the topic, the author was able to stay focused and not drift into unnecessary biographical details.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article is written in a neutral tone, and where necessary provides a balance of views.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
The article is new, with no indication at this stage of any instability.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The images are pertinent, captioned, tagged and valid.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A very nice article that was a pleasure to review, and an example to us all.

Comments

Lead

The lead neatly and concisely summarises the article. It creates interest, inciting the reader to delve further, without the hindrance of unnecessary detail.

Background

The concise and relevant biographical details, together with the commentary on the depiction of nude figures, put the painting nicely into context. A minor point to consider:

"...intention of becoming a history painter in the tradition of the Old Masters." – source has "...ambition was to be a history painter in the Old Master tradition." Close paraphrasing? It's marginal.

I can't see an obvious way to avoid that, other than deleting the line altogether. Once William Etty itself has been rewritten, the articles on individual works won't need anywhere near this level of bio detail, but at the moment it's such an awful article (I've cleared out the worst of the outright lies) that I don't want to be directing readers there. – iridescent 22:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

The composition is described well, but it does rely heavily on the one source which might be an area for improvement.

Incidentally, I wonder if the painting was ever known as Festival before the Flood?[1]

It's very likely the same painting; Etty rarely titled his paintings, so the ones that have passed through multiple hands tend to have a number of different names depending on what their various owners chose to call them. In this series, I'm only listing alternative titles if the painting appears under that title in the catalogue of a major gallery or exhibition (meaning there's a realistic chance people will be looking it up under that name); otherwise, they just proliferate too much. (This one only has the one title, but look at the lead section of something like The Destroying Angel and Daemons of Evil Interrupting the Orgies of the Vicious and Intemperate.) – iridescent 22:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The selection of critical responses are well chosen for balance and interesting comment.

Legacy

A minor point of transcription:

In the quote from Etty's letter to Thomas Bodley, "...hope for equally favourable gales next voyage", the source has "...hope for equally favouring gales next voyage."