Talk:Hawaii series by Georgia O'Keeffe/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 05:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an interesting article, and, on a cursory glance, it seems close already to meeting the criteria to be a Good Article. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall, the standard of the article is high.
It is of reasonable length, with 4,517 words of readable prose.
The lead is appropriately long at 267 words.
Authorship is 99.6% from the nominator with contributions from 7 other editors.
It is currently assessed as a C class article.
There are some duplicate links, including An American Place, Arthur Wesley Dow, Honolulu Academy of Arts, Isamu Noguchi and jimsonweed.

Y Fixed.

Suggest linking Heliconia and papaya in the text rather than the infobox.

Y Fixed.

Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.

In progress.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- The writing is clear and appropriate.
- I have made some minor copyedits. Please check them and revert if you disagree with them.
- Suggest adding an extra hyphen in "all-expenses-paid".
Y Fixed.
- I believe "art work" is one word.
Y Fixed.
- I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- Add an initial sentence following MOS:LEADSENTENCE.
Instructions unclear.

I will see what I can do to explain. The article seems to lack a first sentence similar to those in other Good Articles, including ones that you have reveiwed like Peace Monument or Regulus (Turner). I think it could be the lack of bold title (MOS:BOLDLEAD) or that the sentence as very complex (MOS:LEADCLUTTER). Given that you have reviewed a good number of GAs, I am sure that you will see better than I can describe.

Please check the mentions to genera, species and common names and ensure that they are compliant with MOS:ORGANISMS.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included, with sources listed.
all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- Sources are a mainly books from reputable publishers, articles in journals and contemporary newspaper articles. Included are biographies by both Hoffman and Lisle.
it contains no original research;
- All relevant statements have inline citations.
- Spot checks confirm Christopher 2018, Cohen 2018, Hoffman 1984, Messinger 2001, O'Connell 2013, Saville 1990 and Wright 1996.
- The relationship between "horror of meaningless work" and commercial art work is not clear in Lisle 1997. The page talks about her lack of time to think about things and dislike of Chicago as well as the statement "she didn't want to think about advertising all the time."
In progress.
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 21.3% chance of copyright violation with an article in the Smithsonian magazine, although the majority of overlaps seem to be names of works. The quote from Coiner about pineapples is shared with a 1989 biographical article in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Neither are sufficient to cause concerns.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- The article does a good job of covering the topic.
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- The article is generally compliant, but it does feel that there are areas that go beyond the topic.
I am happy to make modifications if you can be specific.
- While the list of plants with their photos can feel superfluous, I feel its position in the article is justified.
I added it because it was a major part of the 2018 exhibition Georgia O'Keeffe: Visions of Hawaiʻi at the New York Botanical Garden. In fact, the table is almost entirely sourced from the NYBG.
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The article seems generally balanced.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- There is no evidence of edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The lead image O'Keeffe Hibiscus with Plumeria 1939.jpg has a fair use tag. Can you please confirm that this is accurate.
It's accurate, but there's a question as to whether these images are in the public domain if the copyright wasn't renewed. I have participated in at least one discussion about this but was unable to get to the bottom of it. Two users on Commons believe that one or more images from this set are PD and have uploaded them, however it was deleted several months ago as not being in the PD.[1] So the question is moot for now.
- The other images have appropriate CC or PD tags.
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The images are extensive and appropriate.
- I enjoyed the fact that many of the illustrations of the plants are actually from Hawaii, particularly Forest & Kim Starr's images.
- The papaya image TREES (7915144220).jpg does not say that it is papaya in the description on Commons. Suggest updating it.
Y Fixed.

@Viriditas: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I will probably need several days to address everything. Thanks for your review. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]