Talk:Jacob van Ruisdael/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose: ok. Copyright: ok. Spelling: ok. Grammar: ok.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: ok. layout: ok. weasel: ok. Fiction: n/a. Lists: none.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevance: ok. Captions: ok.See comments on caption dates, names, wikilinks
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a fine and interesting article, comprehensive and elegantly cited, and beautiful as well. Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much for your elaborate review. I will address the various points as quickly as possible. @Jane023 has already started on the images. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what to do with the US PD. I checked images on El Greco, an FA, and see just "PD-art|PD-old-100", which is what I saw for Ruisdael's first image. Do I need to add "PD-1923" for all images? I did that for the Windmill but still see warning boxes on commons. Sorry I am a little lost, not done this before. Any guidance much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

PD-Art|PD-old-100 is fine for the USA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

General comments

This seems a fine article, and given the subject, a large number of images seems to me entirely acceptable (whatever the folks at FAC may say). The images ought all to be roughly the same size, so if they are in portrait format you should use the "|upright" parameter.

The same goes for the section named "Gallery", which is generally deprecated (and has a double meaning in a painter's case, somewhat misleadingly). Perhaps it should be named "Example works" or something similar. (Ok, that degree of automation is some kind of a solution: but it consumes a lot of space, and now it's the portrait-shaped images that appear larger than landscape ones.)

Not sure what to do with the images in "Notable paintings" section. I'm hoping Jane can come up with something. How about we disperse the images in "Life" section? Put the 3 family members at the top, the Hobbema/Jacob pair right after Hobbema's mention in the text, the Berchem/Jacob pair after the travel section. And then move Vroom and Porcellis down to Legacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwininlondon (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds promising. Hard to know until it happens, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I don't see why long low images should appear much larger in the "galleries" than tall narrow ones - there is a large disparity in surface area which is basically unjustifiable. I'd request therefore that you format the images in the "Life" section like those in the "Legacy" section (though you could use "|nolines" to avoid the frames in both cases, actually). The images in the "Gallery" section should be formatted the same way, whichever way that is, as should their captions (there seems no imaginable justification for having three galleries all formatted differently).

Could the dates of paintings be added to all the captions which don't yet have them, please.

Apart from these very minor comments, there looks to be very little wrong with the article. I'll have a careful look for specific issues, however.

Specific comments

It's a bit startling to see the spelling of the surname change in the second paragraph of the lead before any other family members are introduced. Perhaps this particular place should have "Ruisdael" (or, "Ruisdael's family", to avoid the problem), and then the variations in the spelling should be introduced. If you don't want to do that, then the sentence could avoid using the name altogether, and introduce the members and their varying surnames first.

I see your point. I have softened the shock by introducing the weird spelling: 'some of whom spelled their name Ruysdael' Edwininlondon (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference 6, "Jacob van Ruisdael in the RKD" is not in canonical form (and is not verifiable except by walking around the entire RKD site). Is there not an RKD web page you could link to? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is. Good catch. Linked now. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference 51 should have the article's date (Feb 26, 2006).

I presume you meant the Waldemar reference. Date added now. Or is the Rijksmuseum one not good?Edwininlondon (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are the artists in the captions to the images in Life named only as forenames or surnames, and not wikilinked? It would be kinder for non-expert readers who may start with the images to give all these names in full and to link each name in the first caption in which it appears. This is not overlinking as you may link the first occurrence of a term in the lead, the text, and the captions, i.e. up to three times in all, before overlinking is even considered to have occurred: and even then it can be justified in special cases.

I see your point. Wikilinks ad full names added. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Admitted as a member": is this usual? "Admitted to membership" feels more comfortable. Or simply "became a member", indeed.

Simply 'became a member' doesn't convey so well that there seems to have been quite a bit involved to get in. 'Admitted to membership' it is. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"But despite his numerous..."; "But Slive concludes..." - perhaps not ideal to begin a sentence like this.

Done Edwininlondon (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"The first panoramic landscape of his hand": perhaps "... from his hand" would be more usual, while "His first panoramic landscape" would be simpler and arguably more encyclopaedic. There's also "from his brush": perhaps these elegant variations would best be avoided.

I agree. Done. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The image View of Naarden, 1647 is rather low, making the area of the image very small. I'd suggest widening the image a little, perhaps with "|upright=1.2" if you're comfortable with that, to make the image area roughly the same as the other images near it. It's a gorgeous image, by the way, that is utterly lost in postage-stamp format. If we were feeling bold we'd recommend making it a "wide image".

I fear that wide may be a bit too bold for the FAC, but 1.2 looks better already. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"recalls the elegiac tenor of the Virgilian pastoral": well, yes, but this is getting a little bit flowery for a global encyclopaedia. Perhaps this had better be toned down.

Definitely. I removed it entirely. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"a way to explore a search": explore and search are rather too similar here. Perhaps "a way to hint at a search". I'll leave it to you to consider whether "unambiguous epistemology" is really necessary for our readers.

Not really, too much flowery interpretation. I removed it entirely. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"in which he later was buried.": presumably after his death. Perhaps "in which he would one day be buried."

Ha, I had not thought of it that way at all, but now I see. Done. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Modern day critics rate Ruisdael still highly." Reword.

Better this way? Edwininlondon (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"A first account, in 1718, is from Houbaken": Houbaken who? And shouldn't it be Houbraken anyway?

Sorry about the typo. Do you feel Houbraken even here he needs to be described better? He was introduced as "earliest biographer" in the Life section, and then mentioned quite a few times afterwards. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Legacy: Constable: should be spelt out with forename and wikilinked on first usage, as indeed should Gainsborough, Turner and anyone else.

Oops, someone lost earlier wikilinks. Done Edwininlondon (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Footnote "Landscape with Hut of 1646 is one example of which, after careful study, it currently is assumed Ruisdael did the figures himself." could be better worded.

How about this: Landscape with Hut of 1646 is one such example. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Much better.

Thanks again for all your improvements. I really appreciate your experienced view. If there are any more details to fix, let me know. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

These specifics are done. See the general comments for issues with images and dates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)