Theft of The Weeping Woman from the National Gallery of Victoria was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 7, 2016). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
A fact from Theft of The Weeping Woman from the National Gallery of Victoria appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 July 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
typo: agianst → against
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I remember this....right then, will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below:
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs) 12:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
What is the status of this review? It has been a month since the above was posted by Cas Liber, and there haven't been any edits to the article to address these issues by nominator Shirt58. Progress of some sort would seem to be in order after this hiatus. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
My first time at WP:GAR. Is there a deadline for GA reviews? If there is, have I missed it?-- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I am not sure whether the outstanding points are too trivial (as I am often pushing articles to FAC here), so have asked for a fresh set of eyes. I have no problem with a second editor deciding either way. The key really is is it comprehensive enough... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
Overall:
Picasso was asked why he painted the way he did, with ears coming out of mouths and so on. His reply was "See paint I things as I them". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.223.150 ( talk) 06:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the title of this page is so long? Since there is no page with a similar title, the "from the National Gallery of Victoria" part seems a little redundant to me. Should it not be removed for convenience’s sake? FBryz ( talk) 16:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Theft of The Weeping Woman from the National Gallery of Victoria was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 7, 2016). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
A fact from Theft of The Weeping Woman from the National Gallery of Victoria appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 July 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
typo: agianst → against
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I remember this....right then, will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below:
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs) 12:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
What is the status of this review? It has been a month since the above was posted by Cas Liber, and there haven't been any edits to the article to address these issues by nominator Shirt58. Progress of some sort would seem to be in order after this hiatus. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
My first time at WP:GAR. Is there a deadline for GA reviews? If there is, have I missed it?-- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I am not sure whether the outstanding points are too trivial (as I am often pushing articles to FAC here), so have asked for a fresh set of eyes. I have no problem with a second editor deciding either way. The key really is is it comprehensive enough... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
Overall:
Picasso was asked why he painted the way he did, with ears coming out of mouths and so on. His reply was "See paint I things as I them". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.223.150 ( talk) 06:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the title of this page is so long? Since there is no page with a similar title, the "from the National Gallery of Victoria" part seems a little redundant to me. Should it not be removed for convenience’s sake? FBryz ( talk) 16:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)