Talk:Barbara Howard (artist)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Rewrite lead per WP:LEAD
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All statistics like dates as well as quotes need references.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The subjects of her Bibliography, her writing style, her painting style, critic of her style need to be discussed
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Using meta:OTRS is the best way of authenticating the licenses of all images. "Wardsislander for the Estate of Barbara Howard" is not enough. An email from the Estate of Barbara Howard's official email id, should be sent to wikipedia to verify the veracity of the authorship. User:Wardsislander may be the legal author, but in the past we have had copyright violations due to user claiming illegally authorship of images. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article needs a lot of work to be at GA level. Please go through some WP:GA and observe how are written and check Wikipedia:Good article criteria before renominating the article. You may want have a peer review for more suggestion to improve this article.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste from Redtigerxyz's talk

Thanks for your comments regarding http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Barbara_Howard_(artist)/GA1 . I am happy to try and make improvements to this article but would be grateful if you could be more specific in your recommendations:

1. Rewrite lead per WP:LEAD -- I have read the WP:LEAD suggestions and it is not clear to me how what I have written doesn't comply.

The one sentence lead does not completely summarize the article. Compare with lead of GA Leonardo da Vinci.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. All statistics like dates as well as quotes need references -- I have added a new reference to the opening paragraph but am not sure what other dates or quotes are not already covered.

I have added tags.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. The subjects of her Bibliography, her writing style, her painting style, critic of her style need to be discussed -- It seems to me that the titles in her Bibliography are self explanatory and her painting style is discussed. I would be grateful for any suggestions on how to improve these.

Self explanatory titles is not enough. We need more detail. Her painting style and its critic needs to be discussed in more detail.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Using meta:OTRS is the best way of authenticating the licenses of all images. "Wardsislander for the Estate of Barbara Howard" is not enough. An email from the Estate of Barbara Howard's official email id, should be sent to wikipedia to verify the veracity of the authorship -- Thanks for pointing this out. I have rectified this omission in an email to the appropriate department.

5. This article needs a lot of work to be at GA level. -- I don't wish to make a lot of extra work for you. Do you think that a peer review would be helpful?

That's your call.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments. I hope to be able to bring this article up to GA level in due course. Wardsislander (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unhappy with the assessment, go for the GA reassessment.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

This article has now been extensively worked on to address the concerns mentioned in the GA Review above. Wardsislander (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]