A. Prose is "
clear and
concise", without
copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: Overall it's a very well-written article. I reviewed it and made some edits for punctuation, spelling and minor copy edits. No issues found in the source to content checks.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)reply
A.
Major aspects: Great coverage of the topic, including background historical information; key artists and subjects; print production processes; and interest by the west and influence on western art.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
After running
Dablinks, I added one disambiguation tag for burnishing - the options seem to be burnishing for metal and pottery. Neither quite fit, but marked with the tag for resolution.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I left it at the dab because the metal and pottery pages obviously weren't appropriate. I couldn't tell whether I should redlink to a
Burnishing (paper) page, or if it would be best if someone created a
Burnishing article that had the metal, pottery, & whatever pages as subarticles, or combined into one article (I'm no expert on the subject).
Curly Turkey (
gobble)
04:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Yep, it gets a bit complex in that there seems to be a different definition of burnishing for paper vs. ukiyo-e (couple of good sources
here. Does "burnishing" come up a lot in ukiyo-e articles? If not, maybe it could be unlinked and have a note with the definition. Or, as you say create a
Burnishing (paper) or
Burnishing (ukiyo-e) article. Whatever you think is best works for me.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
04:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Starting to check content to source. So far, the Lane cited text is well-written, without copyvio issues. Will spot-check some others tomorrow, but so far looks good.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
01:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
There are weird CS1 errors for web citation dates: "Check date values in: |date= (help)" This occurs for the citations with date ranges, but the en dash is used appropriately, so I'm not sure what the issue is. If anyone else knows how to correct this, that would be helpful. One option might be to use the latest year.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
02:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh, that's good. I have something set in preferences somewhere so that I see the errors. I don't know where, I investigated a CS1 error at one point and on that page I clicked a box so that I could see the errors directly, versus the indirect route. If the error message isn't seen for most people it's not likely a big issue.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
04:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
You know what it might be? They appear to be deprecating the "|year=", "|month=", and "|day=" parameters and combining them into the "|date=" parameter since they've moved to using Lua in the templates. Maybe because I'm using "|year=" instead of "|date=" it's spitting out those errors for you. If that's the case, I'd just leave it alone until the bot gets to it.
Curly Turkey (
gobble)
04:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Yep, I've corrected a lot of CS1 errors by moving individual month + year to date. But, I've not seen CS1 errors for lone year values. This time I think the issue is the range of years, but you've got an en dash between the years, as directed. I think we should let it go.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I see that added content from the Boston Museum was removed, which is fine since the original added statements weren't backed up by the source. There's one open clarification tag for "high establishment", numbered items 1 and 3 in this list are complete, and I just have to do some more spot-checking of sources to content (#2).--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
22:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I saw a new comment on the CS1 talk page after I created this summary, so I struck out item #3 as done for the time being/until there's consensus.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
22:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Ok, good. So far, the source-to-content checks are going very well. If you could take a look at the clarification tag for "high establishment" that would be great, and if you see anything in
my edits that is concerning to you that would be good to know, too. I don't plan on making any more copy edits.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
23:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
A. Prose is "
clear and
concise", without
copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: Overall it's a very well-written article. I reviewed it and made some edits for punctuation, spelling and minor copy edits. No issues found in the source to content checks.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)reply
A.
Major aspects: Great coverage of the topic, including background historical information; key artists and subjects; print production processes; and interest by the west and influence on western art.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
After running
Dablinks, I added one disambiguation tag for burnishing - the options seem to be burnishing for metal and pottery. Neither quite fit, but marked with the tag for resolution.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I left it at the dab because the metal and pottery pages obviously weren't appropriate. I couldn't tell whether I should redlink to a
Burnishing (paper) page, or if it would be best if someone created a
Burnishing article that had the metal, pottery, & whatever pages as subarticles, or combined into one article (I'm no expert on the subject).
Curly Turkey (
gobble)
04:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Yep, it gets a bit complex in that there seems to be a different definition of burnishing for paper vs. ukiyo-e (couple of good sources
here. Does "burnishing" come up a lot in ukiyo-e articles? If not, maybe it could be unlinked and have a note with the definition. Or, as you say create a
Burnishing (paper) or
Burnishing (ukiyo-e) article. Whatever you think is best works for me.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
04:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Starting to check content to source. So far, the Lane cited text is well-written, without copyvio issues. Will spot-check some others tomorrow, but so far looks good.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
01:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
There are weird CS1 errors for web citation dates: "Check date values in: |date= (help)" This occurs for the citations with date ranges, but the en dash is used appropriately, so I'm not sure what the issue is. If anyone else knows how to correct this, that would be helpful. One option might be to use the latest year.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
02:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh, that's good. I have something set in preferences somewhere so that I see the errors. I don't know where, I investigated a CS1 error at one point and on that page I clicked a box so that I could see the errors directly, versus the indirect route. If the error message isn't seen for most people it's not likely a big issue.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
04:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
You know what it might be? They appear to be deprecating the "|year=", "|month=", and "|day=" parameters and combining them into the "|date=" parameter since they've moved to using Lua in the templates. Maybe because I'm using "|year=" instead of "|date=" it's spitting out those errors for you. If that's the case, I'd just leave it alone until the bot gets to it.
Curly Turkey (
gobble)
04:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Yep, I've corrected a lot of CS1 errors by moving individual month + year to date. But, I've not seen CS1 errors for lone year values. This time I think the issue is the range of years, but you've got an en dash between the years, as directed. I think we should let it go.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I see that added content from the Boston Museum was removed, which is fine since the original added statements weren't backed up by the source. There's one open clarification tag for "high establishment", numbered items 1 and 3 in this list are complete, and I just have to do some more spot-checking of sources to content (#2).--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
22:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I saw a new comment on the CS1 talk page after I created this summary, so I struck out item #3 as done for the time being/until there's consensus.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
22:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Ok, good. So far, the source-to-content checks are going very well. If you could take a look at the clarification tag for "high establishment" that would be great, and if you see anything in
my edits that is concerning to you that would be good to know, too. I don't plan on making any more copy edits.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
23:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply