Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gbern3 (talk · contribs) 09:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article does not meet GA standards at this time. I have provided several examples illustrating the issues I found.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The prose overall needs work and is very inconsistent. Some places seem like they’re written at the elementary school level and other places sound editorial. At the elementary level, I caught a few basic grammar mistakes such as having capital letters after a colon and using a comma in place of a period. These were jammed/run-on sentences that should be broken up into two or more sentences. In other areas, there were a few instances of not following parallel structure (here are examples of what parallel structure is). The editorial areas had too much verbiage or jargon. Plain, clearer language is much better and more accessible to layman readers who aren't familiar with the German language or with art terms such as “atelier”. At minimum, link to its Wikipedia page or its entry on Wiktionary per WP:UNDERLINK or explain the terms per WP:JARGON. Last but not least, I found more than one instance of what looks like plagiarism. I'll start with this point:
Atelier is a French word that is quite frequently used in the English language.--Tomcat (7) 20:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Atelier is also an art term that is quite frequently used among artists. It is not frequently used among the general public which is why it needs a link. Please consider layman readers. // Gbern3 (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this period, he mainly painted on commission: Portraits of citizens of Balingen, views of the town, flocks of sheep and horses: horses at the blacksmith's, pulling hay wagons, pulling post wagons, pulling coaches, at pasture, at rest, being shown, in the market ... Eckenfelder complained about the bad quality of oil paints after the First World War; in particular, the yellow for warm summer light on the hide of a grey was no longer adequate for his requirements. With two colons back-to-back and an ellipses this is one big, long run-on sentence. It looks like WP:COPYPASTE but since the source is written in German I would say closely paraphrased instead especially since there is no citation. How do we know what Eckenfelder complained about? Without a citation it's just hearsay and conjecture. Since "portraits" is not a proper noun and does not come after a period, it should not be capitalized.

Eckenfelder's ploughing horses become more monumental and infused with pathos,... This sentence sounds so dramatic and romantic that I can't help but to suspect plagiarism. Again, there is no citation provided.

He was named an honorary citizen of Balingen in 1928, a street was named for him in 1931, a gallery devoted to his work was established in the town museum in 1978, and the banqueting hall of the town community centre is also named in his honour. The last part of this sentence lacks parallel structure. Suggestion: He was named an honorary citizen of Balingen in 1928, a street was named for him in 1931, a gallery devoted to his work was established in the town museum in 1978, and the banqueting hall of the town community centre was ~~also~~ named in his honour in [year].

The children were declared legitimate through marriage and, through their mother, citizens of Württemberg. Parallel structure again. Suggestion: The children were declared legitimate through marriage and declared citizens of Württemberg through their mother.

The boy's talent for drawing was discovered in elementary school and advanced training was recommended, which he received from 1875 in Professor Oskar Hölder's drawing class in Rottweil. Around this time, Christian Landenberger (de) trained there, too. Questions: From 1875 to when? Who is Christian Landenberger and why is he important? I see that you've provided a link to the German language article but please provide some context to layman readers and non-German speakers. A comma is not necessary before "too". Another issue is that two sentences do not qualify as a paragraph. I think it would be better if these sentences joined the third paragraph.

She gave a birth to their son Friedrich Junginger on 19 September 1879 in Munich. Basic grammar problems here. Suggestion: She gave a birth to their son Friedrich Junginger on 19 September 1879 in Munich.

Please refer to Eckenfelder as "Eckenfelder" and not as "the boy" per WP:SURNAME.

Eckenfelder's family tried to conceal this "misstep", from the age of six months, the boy was raised by his grandparents, as if he were their own child. Another run-on sentence. Why is "misstep" in quotes? Suggestion: Eckenfelder's family tried to conceal this misstep. From the age of six months, he was raised by his grandparents as if he were their own child. Technically, using the active voice like this From the age of six months, his grandparents raised him as if he were their own child would be better, but I believe this argument about active vs. passive voice is beyond the scope of GA and therefore, not required.

I know the definition of active and passive voice.--Tomcat (7) 20:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eckenfelder lived in the artists' quarter of Munich, Maxvorstadt, near other artists. He shared quarters first with Bernhard Buttersack. Christian Landenberger lived on the opposite side of the staircase. Paul Burmester, Georg Jauss (de), Richard Winternitz and Gino von Finetti moved in the same circle, as well as the so-called "Schwabenburg" (Swabian castle), the atelier of the painters Anton Braith and Christian Mali, from Biberach an der Riss. Their meeting place was the "Arzberger Keller". If he lived in the artists’ quarter then it’s obvious that he lived near other artists. Suggestion: Eckenfelder lived in the artists' quarter of Munich, Maxvorstadt.~~near other artists~~ He shared quarters ~~first~~ with Bernhard Buttersack. The sentence starting with Paul is jammed with information. Please break it up into two sentences or rewrite it. Also, it would be helpful if you put in parenthesis what "Keller" means. Is this "circle" an association of people or a group of houses like a cul-de-sac?

Both artists were members of the artists' society Allotria and in 1892 founding members of the Munich Secession. Eckenfelder showed two horse paintings at the founding exhibition in 1888, and at the exhibitions in 1896, 1899, 1903, 1906 and 1911. This doesn’t make sense. They founded Munich Secession in 1892 but they had the founding exhibition for Munich Secession in 1888—four years before they founded it. How did they have an exhibition for something that wasn’t founded yet?

To the south, the so-called Balinger Berge (Balingen mountains), prominently split by the valley of the Eyach, include the Lochen and Lochenhörnle (956 m)... For a reader not familiar with Germany, the Eyach could be a city, a river, a type of tree, or a tribe. Please add the word "river" to make this clear.

There are more prose problems but I’m going to stop giving examples now because I believe you get the point.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The lead adequately summarizes the biography section but it does not say anything about the works section. Another paragraph should be added to make up for this. I appreciate the use of interlanguage links in article. I see you also have persondata. The layout is fine. The table of contents is not too long. It wouldn't hurt to add more works to the infobox but I don't think this is a requirement for GA. There are WP:PEACOCK words throughout the article. Read WP:WTW for a longer explanation of why this is not good. The works section in particular sounds like an opinion piece.
In the lead it says By 1878 he was referred to as an "animal painter". This is not mentioned in the youth section which talks about his life in 1878. It’s mention in “1890s” section: During this period, Eckenfelder is described by the specialist press not only as an animal painter, but also as a landscape painter and "Kleinmeister" Which one is correct? Either way, it needs a citation specifically in the lead since it's quoted there WP:CITELEAD.

...the so-called "Schwabenburg" (Swabian castle), the atelier of the painters Anton Braith and Christian Mali, from Biberach an der Riss. "So-called" is WP:ALLEGED. Please remove it.

Already in 1883, Eckenfelder had exhibited his Überschwemmung im Neckarthal (Flooding in the Neckar Valley) at the international art exhibition in the Glaspalast in Munich. Normally the first sentence in a paragraph serves as a topic sentence/introduction to the rest of the paragraph. The sentence I just quoted is the first sentence of the fourth paragraph in the Munich section but it has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph is about the relationship between Eckenfelder and the prince but this sentence is about an exhibition in the Glaspalast. It would be more appropriate if this was moved to the fifth paragraph which talks about the rest of his exhibitions and sales throughout Germany. What is the difference between the press and the specialist press? If there is no difference, "specialist" is WP:PEACOCK. The prince regent took a lively interest in the artistic life of Munich... lively is also WP:PEACOCK. Just say "the press" or "The prince regent took interest..." Those sentences will have the same meaning without the puffery. ...[he] supported young artists not only financially, but also with the renown they entailed. What are you trying to say? What does this mean? How did the prince support someone with renown? English is my first language and I don’t even understand this? I hate to bring up plagiarism again, but sentences like these make me feel like it's a valid concern.

Works of this period include the types that are icons of his later paintings: horses in harness at rest, riding out or riding home, and the Zollernschloss. Please put in parenthesis "Zoller Castle" for people who don’t know what schloss means. Not everyone reading the article will be familiar with German.

There are about 30 full views of Balingen, plus in addition pictures of market scenes, individual houses—these clearly recognisable as commissions... "clearly" is WP:EDITORIAL.

"supernumeries" is spelled wrong (supernumeraries). Per WP:JARGON please explain this or replace it with a simple term.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
The formatting in the references section looks fine; however, please translate the quotes in the citations per WP:NONENG/MOS:FOREIGN. Concerning the sources section, I realize the GA criteria does not explicitly say there should be more than one source but I honestly think that's because this is obvious. The reason why I say this is because when you only use one source, you run the risk of the article sounding just like the one source you've used for information. I haven't read Schnerring's book at all but there are parts of the article that read like they’ve been translated verbatim from the book. This is why it’s better to use more than one source. When you use more than one source, it's more likely the article will sound like it’s in an editors own words—or in this case your words—and not like it has been closely paraphrased. I did a brief search on Google and found three sources: gallery on page 34, brief bio, another brief bio. I admit, they aren’t much but you could use these as references in the biography section at the very least. Note, the WP:BURDEN lies on the editor to provide references when challenged. This is policy.
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
The article is peppered with {{fact}} tags and I’ve found other sentences in the article that need citations. Again, the WP:BURDEN lies on the editor.
The entire first paragraph in the youth section has no citations. Citations are required for all the dates and facts presented.

In his late work, the motif of "ploughing horses with Balingen landscape background" emerges. If a sentence has a quote, it needs a citation.

Eckenfelder created well over a hundred variations on this theme. All statistics need citations.

Many of the foreground locations in which Eckenfelder's horses are seen ploughing, were enclosed and made into housing estates after the Second World War. Citation please.
C. No original research:
No original research that I can tell.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Covers life from birth to death. Talks about his work and how the themes in his paintings changed over time.

B. Focused:
The article stays focused on Eckenfelder for the most part but the following sentence went off-topic for me. Eckenfelder was the first private pupil of Heinrich von Zügel. [Zügel] was also a pupil of Hölder; their relationship was a "… mixture of teacher/pupil, friendship and father/son relationship.” Why does the relationship between Zügel and Hölder matter? What does this have to do with Eckenfelder? This either needs to be removed or put in a footnote like this for miscellaneous information.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
I can’t really say if it’s neutral or not. I think relying on one source makes the article bias in an inadvertent way. How can the article be neutral when the whole thing is based on one book—the voice of one author. Perhaps I'm over thinking this.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No major changes from day to day.
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:
The images are tagged but the fair use rationales for a few of them are not valid. I found three images (the main picture in the infobox, the picture of Elsa Martz, and the picture of two horses ploughing) that do not have a suitable copyright license because they are not in the public domain of the U.S. For this reason, they shouldn’t be used in the English language Wikipedia WP:NFCI. There may be other images in the article that are not in the public domain (U.S.) but I stopped checking after finding the third one. On a positive note, I really like the table in the works section that illustrates how Schnerring arranged Eckenfelder's paintings by category.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The captions are suitable but I don’t understand why the panoramas and the pictures in the table don't have dates (the year)? All of the other images have dates.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article in its current state is a "fail". It meets #3 and possibly #6 on the list of quickfails. There are cleanup tags peppered throughout the article and a one-source banner at the top. Considering the 300+ backlog at GA, the basic grammar issues (missing periods, run-on sentences, comma splices), prose issues, missing citations, and copyright violations, everything in me says I should fail it. Against my better judgement, I’m going to put it "on hold" for a week instead to give you the opportunity to fix the issues just in case you’re able to. Should this article end up failing, I strongly suggest that you get a peer review before renominating. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 The seven-day hold period is over. Closing the review as "fail". // Gbern3 (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you finished with your review? Please read WP:GA, the top banner, how to close nominations. I am quite offended by your libels, so it is better to just close this page to avoid any future conflicts. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm finished with the review. Why are you offended? What libels? Are you referring to the points I brought up about close paraphrasing/plagiarism? I'll admit, I'm not that experienced when it comes to good article reviews. I volunteered to do this one to help with the backlog. Even with my inexperience, I do think the points I brought up were valid and I provided examples because I thought they would be helpful. I don't know why this offends you. I'm open to feedback. // Gbern3 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind.--Tomcat (7) 20:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gbern3, you did a good job with your review and you had the patience to point out the vast majority of the problems with the article. Your own review dealt with much of the concerns that I had about the writing . I'm glad to see that another careful editor was able to recognize such a difference as it paints a close parallel. I've brought the matter to DR as Tomcat7 has once again removed the valid tags in an attempt to cover up some of the more blatant concerns. He is has incorrectly cited material the page source as indicated in this diff, where he claims it is on page 18. [1] Tomcat7 has no idea of where the content is. And quite frankly I am appalled that Tomcat7 would make this up. Tomcat7, answer a question for me. Do you have the book, yes or no? You've never answered this question. How can you correct the errors when you do not have the source. If you did have the source, why are you giving the wrong pages and sections for the content in this book? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gbern did a quite libellous review, but I will forgive him. I don't have and need the book! User:Wuselig may help further, but after seeing your poor review I don't know if he wants to collaborate with me. Now answer me: Did you found more reliable, third-party sources apart from the biography? Please answer this as I did. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 11:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to assist in fixing this article. I have no requirement or need to provide additional sources. I noted where they could be according according to the name being mentioned, I doubt they are more then a passing reference, but if they are it could fix this article. As the nominator, you should be addressing it, while I as the previous reviewer, assist in helping you address it if I cannot. I have neither access to those works, but they do mention Friedrich by name at least once. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chris for your compliments. I tried to be helpful. Tomcat, you never answered my question. What libels? That's quite an accusation. I want to know how you came to this conclusion considering I provided examples for all of my concerns. // Gbern3 (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the tags as relevant, you and I both agree about many of the concerns in the article. After noting Tomcat7 providing false inline citations I believe the section below is warranted. Please do not let this article throw you off GAN, I too was once deterred by such a review, but I support and have learned from your review. Though if I might point out something, I do not think inline citations are not required for every date specific event, but are encouraged. I would advise not failing it before a week has passed, as you see where that mess got me after putting it on hold. I'll be here to support and monitor improvements in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomkat, I dropped by today to remind you that the seven-day hold period ends tomorrow. You had a series of edits on the 16th but there hasn't been much activity concerning the prose, images, and references since then. If you want the article to obtain GA status, please make the appropriate changes. // Gbern3 (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomcat, not Tomkat, and I won't talk with someone who teaches me basic English as if I were dumb. Learn how to properly speak, and I will reconsider.--Tomcat (7) 20:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you won't. You haven't WP:LISTENed to anyone since this review began. Learn basic grammar, how to remove images with copyright problems, how to not closely paraphrase an author's work, and how to add inline citations. I'm done talking to you too and I'm closing this review as "fail" since you have not attempted to resolve even half of the issues that are wrong in the article. // Gbern3 (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]