Talk:Henry Ninham
 | Henry Ninham has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 17, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Henry Ninham/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Skyes(BYU) (talk · contribs) 21:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I will be conducting this review. Today I will begin by looking at this page as a whole and tomorrow I will look into the details. Please feel free to ask questions or make comments, I am very active on Wikipedia during the weekdays.Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
My initial impression of the article is good. The prose is good quality with no observable errors and I have been so far impressed by the organization of the article as well as the reliability of the sources. I will return tomorrow to look at the sources more individually. Thanks! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
These are some small, nitpicky things that I noticed after going through the citations more thoroughly:
- I noticed that the citation that comes after "The leading spirits and finest artists of the movement were Crome and Cotman", only mentions Crome. The cited page does not mention Cotman as far as I could tell. Since that's a significant claim, it would be a good idea to add a page number or citation that reflects the same thing about Cotman.
- Section edited with an amended reference to reflect your point. Amitchell125 18:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't see that Daniell died from malaria in the sources you cited. I could only see that he traveled and had a fever (which does seem like it would be malaria). If I am wrong, please correct me, but otherwise, it shouldn't be inferred that he died from malaria unless it was explicitly stated in the source.
- New reference added to confirm that Daniell died of malaria, with new source in the Bibliography section. Amitchell125 18:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
If you make these fixes or let me know why they don't need to be fixed, I will give you a pass for original research.Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
As far as layout goes, I find it strange to put the artist's published works in between the footnotes and bibliography section. I was confused when looking at the article initially because I thought that the published work section contained the references you used in the article. I think placing it before the notes section would improve the layout of the article. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Section moved up as recommended. Amitchell125 17:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
These are the only concerns I have with the article. If you can make the changes by the end of the day, I can pass you today. Otherwise, I will get back to you on Monday. Thanks! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Overall comments: Thank you for your prompt changes! I am willing to pass this article now because the prose is good quality and neutral, the article is broad yet focused, the article is ripe with inline citations and reliable citations. I see no copyright violations or manual of style issues. Thanks for the opportunity to review an informative and well-written article!Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)