Wikipedia:Peer review/John Simon (engraver)/archive1

John Simon (engraver)

Though I made some minor edits back in 2020, it was Spring and Summer 2021 when the article was greatly expanded and improved to its present state. Simultaneously, I've been working on the Russian-language version of the article; recently this month, the Russian-language article passed RA. Not sure if the English-language can pass GA, yet I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see some outside perspective.

Thanks, Gleb95 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC).

Comments by Dugan Murphy

• Infobox: "Mezzotint" should be capitalized.
• Have you checked to make sure that you the first sentence follows the relevant MOS policy for biographies of people with multiple names or given names versus anglicized names? I haven't checked, but I feel like I've seen other biography articles handle it differently.
• I don't think anglicize should be capitalized.
• Footnote a: I don't think you should use bold for "Simon" in there. Maybe it should be in quotation marks or italics. I know you're supposed to use italics for using a word to refer to itself, like the use of son-of-a-bitch in the lede of John Neal (writer) (something I learned in the Featured Article nomination process).
• Typically, nothing in the lede should need a citation because ledes should typically include only content summarized from cited content in the body of the article. So, if the last sentence of the lede draws from a fact cited in the body, you can discard that citation. If that fact is not cited elsewhere in the article, consider adding it in, then deleting the citation from the lede.
• First sentence of the body says way too much for one sentence. Maybe turn the semicolon into a period.
• I recommend this rule for Wikilinking: first instance in the lede, plus first instance in the infobox, plus first instance in the body, plus any instances in captions and tables. With that in mind, I recommend Wikilinking mezzotint the first time it comes up in the body even though it comes up in the lede and infobox. See MOS:DUPLINK
• "At some point" — is that phrase necessary?
• "gained an the attention"
• I think this article overuses semicolons. The first sentence of second paragraph of Work section has three and ends with one!
• "Beside Aside from" — shows up twice.
• First sentence of second paragraph of Work section: I see that the concept of this sentence is well cited, but I think you should add a citation specifically for "spare and powerful" if you are quoting someone. If instead you are paraphrasing, you should remove the quotation marks.

More in a little bit! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's more:

• What is "brilliance effect"?
• "such as brilliance effect, drawing of the figures and details" — should there be a serial comma after "figures"? The serial comma is used elsewhere in the article, like the first sentence of the Work section, and the article should be consistent.
• "prnts"
• Was it Salaman or Killanin who said "fresh artistic sensitiveness"? Having a combo citation at the end of the sentence makes that unclear.
• Wikilink limner?
• Why is Walpole's 1879 publication listed in the Sources section but not the 1826 and 1849 publications? If you put them there, you could abbreviate citations 1 and 2 like the others. I guess you could say the same about Barhill 1996 and Jeffree 1996.
• Are there any relevant external links to share?
• No available portrait of Simon for the infobox?
• Any other relevant images out there of places he lived or worked to further illustrate the article outside the gallery of his works?
• Is there anything to put in a Legacy section, like things in the world named after Simon?

Overall, great use of citations. I appreciate a well referenced article and clearly you did a lot of research and kept a lot of notes. I took a look at what it looked like before you started expanding it last year and I can see you did a lot. I think if you take care of these issues, this could probably be a decent candidate for GA status. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Reply by Gleb95 to Dugan Murphy

@Dugan Murphy:, greetings. Thank you for comments. I've edited the article as much as possible to your review. I will answer the remaining points.

• Saying of "brilliance effect" etc in Simon's work, 19th-century and early 20th-century authors likely referred to the use of chiaroscuro. (I may be wrong there, but that's what was written in these sources.)
• Though I abbreviated the earlier editions of Walpole's Anecdotes as you recommended, I'm not so sure about applying that to The Dictionary of Art entries.
• Unfortunately, there is no known portrait of Simon, as the ODNB entry says. (From what I've seen in the article Jacob van Ruisdael, it's possible to put an artwork other than (self-)portrait in the infobox, yet I'm not certain about it.)
• For external links, the likely variants are the NPG and the British Museum entries.
• Aside what is already known, Simon doesn't appear to be commemorated anywhere else.

From Russia with love, Gleb95 (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC).