Jump to content

Talk:Ukiyo-e/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 23:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: Overall it's a very well-written article. I reviewed it and made some edits for punctuation, spelling and minor copy edits. No issues found in the source to content checks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: --CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section: --CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: Good sources, web sources checked out (most to John Fiorillo's site, who has many published articles about Japanese art)
    C. No original research: no evidence of original research, well cited content--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: Great coverage of the topic, including background historical information; key artists and subjects; print production processes; and interest by the west and influence on western art.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Focused: the article is quite comprehensive, but topics are covered concisely. The article has 41,860 characters of readable prose, which is within WP:LENGTH.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias: --CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc: --CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: I fixed a number of licensing tags, and they're good now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: It would have been nice to have had the collection information, but because of the multiple groupings of images, the brevity is understandable.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments -

  1. After running Dablinks, I added one disambiguation tag for burnishing - the options seem to be burnishing for metal and pottery. Neither quite fit, but marked with the tag for resolution.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Starting to check content to source. So far, the Lane cited text is well-written, without copyvio issues. Will spot-check some others tomorrow, but so far looks good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There are weird CS1 errors for web citation dates: "Check date values in: |date= (help)" This occurs for the citations with date ranges, but the en dash is used appropriately, so I'm not sure what the issue is. If anyone else knows how to correct this, that would be helpful. One option might be to use the latest year.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I see that added content from the Boston Museum was removed, which is fine since the original added statements weren't backed up by the source. There's one open clarification tag for "high establishment", numbered items 1 and 3 in this list are complete, and I just have to do some more spot-checking of sources to content (#2).--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I've passed the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]