Jump to content

Talk:Art in modern Scotland/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 21:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will give my initial comments by tomorrow. Thanks! — Yash! [talk] 21:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for taking this on.--SabreBD (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • Art in modern Scotland includes all aspects of the visual arts in Scotland - Art in modern Scotland includes all aspects of the visual arts in the country  Done
  • What does 'work of the Four mean?'  Done
  • major artists, including - artists, such as  Done
  • Best to not use words like 'successful'  Done
  • Scotland possess significant collections of art, such as the - Scotland has significant collections of art at places like  Done
  • Linking Edinburgh and Glasgow would be better for a reader who would like to read about those cities  Done
  • Significant schools - Prominent schools. Since you use 'significant' in the previous sentence.  Done
  • The major funding body with responsibility for the arts in Scotland is Creative Scotland. Support is also given by local councils and independent foundations. -  Done
  • The major funding body responsible for the arts in Scotland is Creative Scotland, with support from local councils and independent foundations as well.  Done

I have one last exam tomorrow, after which I will review the rest of the article. Thanks for waiting! — Yash! [talk] 17:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented these so far, except the last one, which is a bit of a run on sentence. What is the problem with the original here, because it seems clear and grammatical to me?--SabreBD (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early twentieth century

[edit]
  • link 'Celtic Revival'  Done
  • helped define - defined - well no that is what the text says - too much credit to say they defined it.
  • 'knew each other and' - no need to include that. - I think there is - it cannot be implied by the rest of the sentence.
  • and all looked - and looked  Done
  • "They were John D..." - better to introduce them when you first mention them.  Done
  • They have been described - They were described - this is not contemporary description.
  • would be a - was a  Done
  • link 'First WW'  Done
  • They were influenced by French painters and the St. Ives School[6] and their art was characterised by use of vivid and often non-naturalistic colour and the use of bold technique above form. - too much 'and'  Done
  • better to be consistent: use Fergusson instead of J.D. Fergusson  Done
  • Don't use words such as 'probably'. If it is not certain, better to remove that part Sometimes things are not certain, but still worth mentioning.
  • link for 'vorticism'?  Done
  • while a student - as a student  Done
  • remove 'strongly'  Done
  • who was in Dundee and who in Montrose? The word "respective" is in this sentence.
  • link for surrealism?  Done
  • and the work of Bruegel and - use something other than 'and' for the second time  Done
  • J.D. Fergusson should be Fergusson  Done
  • Link Second WW  Done
  • remove 'had no single style, but' Why? - seems important to say this.
  • remove 'strongly'  Done
  • resident in - resident of - clarified
  • whose produced illustrations for the work of Robert Louis Stevenson and Paul Strand (1890-1976), who produced atmospheric depictions of Hebridean landscapes. - whose and who sound odd. Better to rephrase it.  Done

Will review the remaining article later today. Thanks! — Yash! [talk] 08:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References and images

[edit]
  • Please add WP:ALT to the images. You know this is a FA not a GA requirement - right?
  • Scotsman.com should not be in italics Do you have a link to the MOS for this one. This seems to be quite correct in many guides outside Wikipedia, but I have not found anything internally. Also seems to implied as correct since templates italicise this.
  • There is no need to include full reference that are in 'Notes', in 'Bibliography' as well - This article uses a short title for repeat refs, but full for the first instance.
  • guardian.co.uk - The Guardian. Also link it.  Done

Everything looks fine here! — Yash! [talk] 10:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Later twentieth century to the present

[edit]
  • Post-War - Post-war  Done
  • Better to not use words like 'highly influential'  Done
  • Barns-Graham (b. 1912-2004) and Margaret Mellis (b. 1914-2009) - Remove 'b.'  Done
  • Also a visitor to Paris was Alan Davie (b. 1920),[24] who was influenced by jazz and Zen Buddhism and moved further into abstract expressionism. - Also a visitor to Paris was Alan Davie (b. 1920),[24] who was influenced by jazz and Zen Buddhism, moved further into abstract expressionism.  Done
  • both grouped - grouped  Done
  • Scottish Realism or Scottish realism? Please be consistent  Done
  • better to introduce the pups in the start, preferably after 'and the Glasgow School of Art'  Done
  • has a comic book-like quality and puts - had a comic-like quality and put  Done
  • Currie has revived - Currie revived  Done
  • Important - Notable  Done
  • who have received - who received - We are in the present tense now.
  • However, he has received little acclaim from critics. - However, he received little acclaim from critics. Also in the present tense now.

Institutions

[edit]
  • National Museum of Scotland, - remove the ','  Done
  • I am not sure if 'the' should be used in 'from the decorative arts'. Probably it should not be there. It looks right to me - we would talk about "the arts" not "arts". See also the opening sentence of Decorative arts.
  • If NGS and SNGMA have national and International collections, then best to combine those sentences - Except one is modern and one not - so I cannot see how to express that as being the same.
  • Glasgow galleries - start that from a new paragraph  Done
  • the new Millennium - please write that in years  Done
  • has had - had - they did not stop having them - continuous past tense is correct.
  • in the city in 1760 and was established in 1907 - in the city in 1760, was established in 1907 - clarified

This wraps it up. Thanks for writing the article! — Yash! [talk] 06:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have implemented all I can without in some way changing the meaning of what is said. Everything I have just done is marked with a  Done.--SabreBD (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): 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 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Everything looks in order. Passing it. — Yash! [talk] 21:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your effort on this.--SabreBD (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]