Talk:The Dream of Ossian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dream of Ossian (1813) by Ingres
The Dream of Ossian (1813) by Ingres

Created by GeneralPoxter (talk). Self-nominated at 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough, long enough, QPQ done. Image is properly licensed (and a Valued image on Commons). Neutral, well cited, and not violating copyright. Hook fact is interesting and cited inline. I find the issue with Ingres planning to change the painting from an oval to a rectangular format slightly confusing: is it correct that he did change the format, but did not go through with other plans to change it? Perhaps you can clarify. Other than that I am happy. Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 21:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the painting was made rectangular, but some compositional changes that were part of that reformatting were not complete. GeneralPoxter (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Dream of Ossian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jburlinson (talk · contribs) 09:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be glad to review this nomination. Should take no more than 5 days for an initial response. More to come!--Jburlinson (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Very well written and organized article. I only have a couple of comments.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead seems a little undernourished. It might help to highlight a couple of significant details from the body of the article. Particularly, the evaluative comment in the lead is quite negative, while the article contains some more positive responses that might be used to balance the impression left by the lead and further enhance the notability of the subject.
Expanded. GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 12:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the sub-section labeled "Fate" is a little ambiguous. It likely refers to the final disposition of the painting, but there's a possibility that it might refer to Napoleon's military exploits or even a theme depicted in the artwork. I'd suggest simply deleting this heading and including the material under the general section "History".
Subsection headers removed. GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 12:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Very close to GA, only a couple of items that needed adjustment before the final stamp of approval.--Jburlinson (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jburlinson: Thanks for the review! I addressed the points your raised; please let me know if there's more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 12:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very good job. Thank you for making such quality contributions to the artwork articles in WP.--Jburlinson (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]