Talk:The Magpie (Monet)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Only a few issues:

• Ref 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 31 and 38 do not point to any citation
  • Ref 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 combined into one ref, 31, 38  Done
• "French design studio Les 84 created a 3D version of The Magpie for the 2010–2011 Monet exhibition at the Galeries nationales du Grand Palais." suggest adding reference  Done
• This section is overall a bit small. Is it possible to add more content?--Kürbis (✔) 16:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how. That's the only derivative work I've found. I could merge it into another section, add as a footnote, or remove it. Those are my only choices at this point. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it is not so tragic as is. Merging would be a good choice.--Kürbis (✔) 10:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I will try to come up with something. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)