Talk:Still Life with Books/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 16:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Bruxton (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review format

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

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): There are issues with the prose that need to be addressed, see following comments.

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): The lead section is not a summary of the main points of the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): No issues found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): The article does not full cover the topic (see following comments).

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail: The above check list may change once the article has been expanded or amended.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Review comments[edit]

Lead section / infobox[edit]

Done The lead section needs to be expanded so as to be a summary of the body. See WP:LEAD for more information.

~~The painting privately owned - 'The painting was privately owned'; It is an example of - 'The work is an example of'. Done~~

Done In the infobox, Still should read ‘Still life’, and be linked.

I think done

Done (Dutch: Stilleven met boeken) should be amended using {{lang-ne|Stilleven met boeken}}.

when I use that abbreviation it renders as Nepali language. Bruxton (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Oil-on-panel has no capital (the link still works without it). The same thing occurs in the Description section.
Done vanitas should be in italics throughout the article.

History[edit]

Done Link Rijksmuseum; pitcher (Pitcher (container).
Done The painting – the work needs to be named in full at the start of this section.
Done Rembrandt - needs to be introduced here.
Done The section requires some copy editing to improve the quality of the prose.
Done February 6, 2009 to April 26 2009 – 6 February 2009 to 26 April 2009 looks better imo.
Done The article does not explain in any way the reason why the painting was misattributed for so long, or the circumstances surrounding the change in attribution.
Done The painting was in private collections - ‘The painting was privately owned’ sounds better imo.
Done This contains the provenance of the painting, which should be included somewhere in the article. I figured it out and it enhanced the article

Description[edit]

Done Link still-life (written ‘still life’); parchment; pewter;

I think done

Done Link palette (Palette (painting)).
Done This article is about a related painting, which I think should be mentioned in some way, perhaps in this section.

References[edit]

Done {{commons category}} should be placed at the top of the section. it does not render correctly because of the reference section, so in have created an external links section and moved commons there
Done Wall Street Journal; The New York Review; The Collector; Financial Times are all in italics, as they are publications. it seems the style of reference section that I use does not allow the markup Edit: Someone has moved the references so that they can be italicized.
Done See here for what appears to be an extensive discussion of the painting by the notable Dutch art historian Pieter J.J. van Thiel. There is much that can be used to expand the article. I figured it out, it was a great find

You have hardly used this important source. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I will see what else can be used in the article. I used his descriptions and critical commentary. Bruxton (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more analysis and critical commentary from van Thiel. Bruxton (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 23 March to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing[edit]

Passing now, good work! Amitchell125 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]