Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Talk:The Blind Leading the Blind/GA1

< Talk:The Blind Leading the Blind
Latest comment: 10 years ago by LT910001 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago22 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 05:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. While you wait, why not spare a thought for the other nominees, and conduct a review or two yourself? This provides excellent insight into the reviewing process, is enjoyable and interesting. A list can be found here Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

  • Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
  • If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
  • Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

edit
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. Addressed; reads wonderfully
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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. Addressed
  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. addressed
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

edit

I coincidentally had the pleasure of seeing this artwork in person and subsequently reading this article several weeks ago, and remember thinking its GA prospects would be excellent. Thus, it's quite a pleasure to be able to review this wonderfully-written article as well! This article burgeons with wonderful phraseology and I commend the authors for their attentive analysis. I have a few comments about the article below:

  • Wonderfully written (with exception of analysis section). Clone machine please!
  • Lead image has a tag (noted below)
  • Sentence in background "Pieter Bruegel the Elder (died 1569)" would benefit from being written in the standard fashion (c. x-y).
  • Several comments regarding the 'background' section:
Great --LT910001 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • "were leading minds in their fields, " is there a better phrase that can be used? This seems clumsy compared to the sophistry evident in the rest of the article.
    • I feel this is already mentioned and should be transferred to Bruegel's article or rewritten: "A bitter, sorrowful tone characterises Bruegel's last works, such as The Blind Leading the Blind and The Magpie on the Gallows.[25] Whether the former painting was intended to send a political message is not clear. Bruegel kept a number of preliminary drawings from becoming public by having his wife burn them upon his death.[26] in 1569, when he was likely in his early forties.[f][2] Whether Bruegel had Calvinist sympathies is not clear, but the evidence indicates he likely held critical views of the Catholic Church.[19]". If retain, suggest a rewrite with a focus on the artwork at hand
Much better --LT910001 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • This paragraph appears out of nowhere, and needs to be more clearly integrated into the article and how it influenced the artwork's construction: ("In ancient Greece the blind were ... leading the blind also appear as one of the illustrated proverbs in Bruegel's Netherlandish Proverbs (1559).[g][28]")
I think that would make an excellent change. --LT910001 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Analysis section
Thanks, that gives a lot more context. --LT910001 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • The first paragraph is very effusive in praise and would benefit from a clearer and more analytical re-write focusing on analysis. Additionally, I feel some of the quotes could be cut, as I do not think many of those commentators are notable enough.
Much less breathless! --LT910001 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Suggest remove ""happy stroke of inspiration" of presenting the tragectory of time and space in the accelerated movement of the figures", as it makes the sentence very long and is already stated
    • Suggest specify "They write that the concept " and add "concept of ..." for clarity
    • Suggest integrate the footnote "According to Margaret Sullivan, Bruegel's audience was likely as familiar with classical literature as with the Bible; Erasmus had published his Adagia two years before Bruegel's painting, and it contained the quotation "Caecus caeco dux" ("the blind leader of the blind") by Roman poet Horace.[6]" into the analysis section, as it's quite pertinent.

Additionally:

This is overall a wonderful article, however it needs some alteration to the prose before it is at GA standard. This article will almost definitely make it to GA, however I have identified quite a few issues, and it is the new year season, so you may be busy in non-Wiki life, so I will (if you agree) put it 'on hold' while these take place. Kind regards,--LT910001 (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, thanks for the very kind words! I'd love to see the original myself, but it's half a world away. Someday!
I've fixed what I could, but there's one bit (noted above) that I haven't tackled yet. Please tell me what you think. Happy New Year, by the way! Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Conclusion

edit

Thanks for your changes to the article (and hopefully that one last change, too). I feel with these changes, the article meets or exceeds the GA criteria, so I will promote it. Well done! Kind regards and best wishes on your wiki-travels, --LT910001 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Blind_Leading_the_Blind/GA1&oldid=967086782"