GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 16:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll take this one.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
16:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose: ok. Copyright: ok. Spelling: ok. Grammar: ok. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | lead: ok. layout: ok. weasel: ok. Fiction: n/a. Lists: none. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Relevance: ok. Captions: ok. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | This is a fine and interesting article, comprehensive and elegantly cited, and beautiful as well. Good work! Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks ever so much for your elaborate review. I will address the various points as quickly as possible. @Jane023 has already started on the images. Edwininlondon ( talk) 18:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This seems a fine article, and given the subject, a large number of images seems to me entirely acceptable (whatever the folks at FAC may say). The images ought all to be roughly the same size, so if they are in portrait format you should use the "|upright" parameter.
The same goes for the section named "Gallery", which is generally deprecated (and has a double meaning in a painter's case, somewhat misleadingly). Perhaps it should be named "Example works" or something similar. (Ok, that degree of automation is some kind of a solution: but it consumes a lot of space, and now it's the portrait-shaped images that appear larger than landscape ones.)
In addition, I don't see why long low images should appear much larger in the "galleries" than tall narrow ones - there is a large disparity in surface area which is basically unjustifiable. I'd request therefore that you format the images in the "Life" section like those in the "Legacy" section (though you could use "|nolines" to avoid the frames in both cases, actually). The images in the "Gallery" section should be formatted the same way, whichever way that is, as should their captions (there seems no imaginable justification for having three galleries all formatted differently).
Could the dates of paintings be added to all the captions which don't yet have them, please.
Apart from these very minor comments, there looks to be very little wrong with the article. I'll have a careful look for specific issues, however.
It's a bit startling to see the spelling of the surname change in the second paragraph of the lead before any other family members are introduced. Perhaps this particular place should have "Ruisdael" (or, "Ruisdael's family", to avoid the problem), and then the variations in the spelling should be introduced. If you don't want to do that, then the sentence could avoid using the name altogether, and introduce the members and their varying surnames first.
Reference 6, "Jacob van Ruisdael in the RKD" is not in canonical form (and is not verifiable except by walking around the entire RKD site). Is there not an RKD web page you could link to?
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
16:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Reference 51 should have the article's date (Feb 26, 2006).
Why are the artists in the captions to the images in Life named only as forenames or surnames, and not wikilinked? It would be kinder for non-expert readers who may start with the images to give all these names in full and to link each name in the first caption in which it appears. This is not overlinking as you may link the first occurrence of a term in the lead, the text, and the captions, i.e. up to three times in all, before overlinking is even considered to have occurred: and even then it can be justified in special cases.
"Admitted as a member": is this usual? "Admitted to membership" feels more comfortable. Or simply "became a member", indeed.
"But despite his numerous..."; "But Slive concludes..." - perhaps not ideal to begin a sentence like this.
"The first panoramic landscape of his hand": perhaps "... from his hand" would be more usual, while "His first panoramic landscape" would be simpler and arguably more encyclopaedic. There's also "from his brush": perhaps these elegant variations would best be avoided.
The image View of Naarden, 1647 is rather low, making the area of the image very small. I'd suggest widening the image a little, perhaps with "|upright=1.2" if you're comfortable with that, to make the image area roughly the same as the other images near it. It's a gorgeous image, by the way, that is utterly lost in postage-stamp format. If we were feeling bold we'd recommend making it a "
wide image".
"recalls the elegiac tenor of the Virgilian pastoral": well, yes, but this is getting a little bit flowery for a global encyclopaedia. Perhaps this had better be toned down.
"a way to explore a search": explore and search are rather too similar here. Perhaps "a way to hint at a search". I'll leave it to you to consider whether "unambiguous epistemology" is really necessary for our readers.
"in which he later was buried.": presumably after his death. Perhaps "in which he would one day be buried."
"Modern day critics rate Ruisdael still highly." Reword.
"A first account, in 1718, is from Houbaken": Houbaken who? And shouldn't it be Houbraken anyway?
Legacy: Constable: should be spelt out with forename and wikilinked on first usage, as indeed should Gainsborough, Turner and anyone else.
Footnote "Landscape with Hut of 1646 is one example of which, after careful study, it currently is assumed Ruisdael did the figures himself." could be better worded.
Thanks again for all your improvements. I really appreciate your experienced view. If there are any more details to fix, let me know. Edwininlondon ( talk) 20:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 16:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll take this one.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
16:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose: ok. Copyright: ok. Spelling: ok. Grammar: ok. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | lead: ok. layout: ok. weasel: ok. Fiction: n/a. Lists: none. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Relevance: ok. Captions: ok. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | This is a fine and interesting article, comprehensive and elegantly cited, and beautiful as well. Good work! Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks ever so much for your elaborate review. I will address the various points as quickly as possible. @Jane023 has already started on the images. Edwininlondon ( talk) 18:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This seems a fine article, and given the subject, a large number of images seems to me entirely acceptable (whatever the folks at FAC may say). The images ought all to be roughly the same size, so if they are in portrait format you should use the "|upright" parameter.
The same goes for the section named "Gallery", which is generally deprecated (and has a double meaning in a painter's case, somewhat misleadingly). Perhaps it should be named "Example works" or something similar. (Ok, that degree of automation is some kind of a solution: but it consumes a lot of space, and now it's the portrait-shaped images that appear larger than landscape ones.)
In addition, I don't see why long low images should appear much larger in the "galleries" than tall narrow ones - there is a large disparity in surface area which is basically unjustifiable. I'd request therefore that you format the images in the "Life" section like those in the "Legacy" section (though you could use "|nolines" to avoid the frames in both cases, actually). The images in the "Gallery" section should be formatted the same way, whichever way that is, as should their captions (there seems no imaginable justification for having three galleries all formatted differently).
Could the dates of paintings be added to all the captions which don't yet have them, please.
Apart from these very minor comments, there looks to be very little wrong with the article. I'll have a careful look for specific issues, however.
It's a bit startling to see the spelling of the surname change in the second paragraph of the lead before any other family members are introduced. Perhaps this particular place should have "Ruisdael" (or, "Ruisdael's family", to avoid the problem), and then the variations in the spelling should be introduced. If you don't want to do that, then the sentence could avoid using the name altogether, and introduce the members and their varying surnames first.
Reference 6, "Jacob van Ruisdael in the RKD" is not in canonical form (and is not verifiable except by walking around the entire RKD site). Is there not an RKD web page you could link to?
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
16:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Reference 51 should have the article's date (Feb 26, 2006).
Why are the artists in the captions to the images in Life named only as forenames or surnames, and not wikilinked? It would be kinder for non-expert readers who may start with the images to give all these names in full and to link each name in the first caption in which it appears. This is not overlinking as you may link the first occurrence of a term in the lead, the text, and the captions, i.e. up to three times in all, before overlinking is even considered to have occurred: and even then it can be justified in special cases.
"Admitted as a member": is this usual? "Admitted to membership" feels more comfortable. Or simply "became a member", indeed.
"But despite his numerous..."; "But Slive concludes..." - perhaps not ideal to begin a sentence like this.
"The first panoramic landscape of his hand": perhaps "... from his hand" would be more usual, while "His first panoramic landscape" would be simpler and arguably more encyclopaedic. There's also "from his brush": perhaps these elegant variations would best be avoided.
The image View of Naarden, 1647 is rather low, making the area of the image very small. I'd suggest widening the image a little, perhaps with "|upright=1.2" if you're comfortable with that, to make the image area roughly the same as the other images near it. It's a gorgeous image, by the way, that is utterly lost in postage-stamp format. If we were feeling bold we'd recommend making it a "
wide image".
"recalls the elegiac tenor of the Virgilian pastoral": well, yes, but this is getting a little bit flowery for a global encyclopaedia. Perhaps this had better be toned down.
"a way to explore a search": explore and search are rather too similar here. Perhaps "a way to hint at a search". I'll leave it to you to consider whether "unambiguous epistemology" is really necessary for our readers.
"in which he later was buried.": presumably after his death. Perhaps "in which he would one day be buried."
"Modern day critics rate Ruisdael still highly." Reword.
"A first account, in 1718, is from Houbaken": Houbaken who? And shouldn't it be Houbraken anyway?
Legacy: Constable: should be spelt out with forename and wikilinked on first usage, as indeed should Gainsborough, Turner and anyone else.
Footnote "Landscape with Hut of 1646 is one example of which, after careful study, it currently is assumed Ruisdael did the figures himself." could be better worded.
Thanks again for all your improvements. I really appreciate your experienced view. If there are any more details to fix, let me know. Edwininlondon ( talk) 20:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)