Talk:Sun in an Empty Room/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 22:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: APK (talk · contribs) 09:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the review. I will try to finish up by today or tonight. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
"When we were at school, [Guy Pène du Bois] and Rockwell Kent... Do you think this sentence should be after a colon following with no observer? APK hi :-) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunlight enters an empty room through a window, casting light amidst shadows on two walls and the floor, from the right to the left, taller in the center, towards a corner which casts a shadow on a back wall to the lower left, with a strip of light on the bottom wall and floor. This seems like a run-on sentence. Maybe reword it? APK hi :-) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let me know if I should do more. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the link to Brian O'Doherty's second mention in the Interpretation section. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link Edgar Degas in the Style section. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
No issues. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Is Livingstone, Margaret (2014)[2002]. in ref 18 correct? Maybe it's a MoS I'm not familiar with. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your confusion arises because someone (I'm not going to name names) keeps changing the cite book template. Originally, outside of Wikipedia, you're supposed to use the brackets of the original year of publication preceding the newer, revised one. Wikipedia template maintainers being the silly people that they are, decided to reverse this format in the cite book template. More recently, they've changed it yet again to do something entirely different. This is one major reason I've stopped using the citation templates. However, the format I'm using is similar to the older format (a year or two ago?) which uses the date of the revised work followed by the original year in brackets. My mistake was in thinking the template maintainers wouldn't actually switch this up yet again, but looking at the current documentation, now they are using the bracket field for extra info about the original publication date, which of course, is exactly the opposite of how it should be used. If you want to comment about the publication date, then you use the newer publication field for remarks about the edition, not the original publication date. Once again, this is why I've stopped using all citation templates. Part of the problem here is that these people just make it up as they go along, not once caring how anyone else does it. So, I will do the same in return. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, that's annoying. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. 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):
Spot check...

#4 - Done

#9 - Done

#12 - Done

#15 - Done

#17 - Done

#20 - Done

C. It contains no original research:
All claims and quotes have citations. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig shows no issues. It's only matching quotes. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Maybe expand the lede just a bit to incorporate some of the material in the Interpretation, Style, or Cultural influence sections. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In progress. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be helpful to mention Hopper being referred to as "one of the major Realist painters of the twentieth century" when first mentioning him in the Background section? APK hi :-) (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In progress. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I found this worked better in the style section as it provided a kind of background for the critical commentary. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
No issues. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No issues. Viewpoints of critics and admirers are given. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No issues. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No issues. Non-free image has proper licensing. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Add an alt caption. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I downloaded NonVisual Desktop Access to test it. It works great. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Another nice article about Hopper! The only issues should be easy to address. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I'm unhappy about the third paragraph of the style section. I think it needs to be entirely rewritten. If you can offer some suggestions, that would be helpful. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like User:Tryptofish took care of it. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks great. APK hi :-) (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]