Talk:Art Deco/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I will be reviewing this article, per your request on my talk page, and will be adding comments below. Over all the article seems well structured and clearly written. I haven't fully checked out the article yet, but I will list some initial comments that strike me glancing through the article. These are fairly nit picky.

Why are all the pix from the USA?
Why two pix of cars?
Were there not many motifs used in designs? How about some pix of examples?
Are there any examples of the 1980s revival, as contrasted with the first rise of Art Deco? What about graphic design which you mention. Any examples of those
What is the subsection tacked on the end "House design in the United Kingdom"? I believe I have seen photos of Art Deco houses from other countries on the Commons.
The "See also" section is way too long. Can you not include some of that information in your article? For example, including an example of Art Deco stamps, rather than have it in the "See also"?
I think the article would benefit from some inclusion of the "See also" info, as it would give it more breadth.
In several sections, such as "Sources" you switch from the present tense to the past tense. While some of this is warranted, some of it is not. For example: "The structure of Art Deco is based on mathematical geometric shapes. It was widely considered to be an eclectic form of elegant and stylish modernism, being influenced by a variety of sources." You say it is based on mathematical geometric shapes" but then you say "It was widely considered to be an eclectic form of elegant and stylish modernism, being influenced by a variety of sources." - Does this mean that it is no longer considered to be an eclectic form, etc.?
The books all need ISBNs.
This link is dead: http://www.miamibeachfl.gov/NEWCITY/tourism/archtour/vtarchit.asp

I will add further comments later. Also, I am willing to help you out with some prose editing, if that is OK with you, rather than give a long list of petty concerns here. It is a very interesting article. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has informed me that he does not have time to complete this now. So, out of necessity, I will fail the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable statement in Intro[edit]

I think this statement: "This movement was, in a sense, an amalgam of many different styles and movements of the early 20th century, including Neoclassical, Constructivism, Cubism, Modernism, Art Nouveau, and Futurism." is highly suspect. Art Deco may have been influenced by the movements, but I don't think it's well established as an amalgam. In fact Art Deco is in many ways a rejection of modernism (for example). ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]