Talk:Pointillé

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 5 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fanders1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD result - keep[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion on December 2 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Rob e rt 01:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emily's Peer Review (11. March 2019)[edit]

To start, the article appears to be very factual, even with the current length, but I would definitely recommend adding more information and sources (bring it up to around 4 or 5 at least). As for the information currently there, it's quite bare bones and the wording is a bit clunky, but I think it also makes a decent skeleton for the future. I would suggest working on smoother transitions between sentences/information and the points. I also think it wouldn't hurt to add some info on the development and evolution of the technique, as well as where the technique was more/most popular (if there are sources out there on that).

Also, in the "Common Uses of Pointille", I'm not a huge fan of how each bullet point is capitalized - I see them more as continuations of the opening sentence rather than new sentences on their own (but that's also my own personal opinion). I would also indicate the centuries of use for the second and third points for better symmetry. Another idea on these points: is it possible to be more specific on what kinds of books used this technique? My first thought was bibles, but I suppose since Europe had managed to get out of the Medieval Period by the 17th Century this might not be the case, and that it was more than just the monks with nothing better to do than write bibles all day using this. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Is it possible to find the source for the picture? I noticed that it didn't have any source attached to it and I thought that it might need one.

Overall, the information already there makes a great base for you to go off of - from here I feel that it's just the question of fleshing out the article. The information looks quite solid - the reader gets the general idea of what this is in a clear and concise manner; the sources look credible; and the set-up looks good. From here, I would look to add more information about the development of the technique, when and where it was popular (more specifically, if the information can be found), and the influences in and surrounding it possible. Good start! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaaveg (talk • contribs) 04:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]