Talk:Crucifixion Diptych (van der Weyden)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) 16:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
The article is interesting and reasonably close to GA status. However, it also has some significant problems:
 * First, the lead does not adequately summarize the article - there are points in the lead that are not covered in the body, and important info in the body not covered in the lead.
 * Second, while it is not required to source basic facts, the article is missing references for a significant amount of material. Notably, there are zero references in the description section
 * Third, the "Provenance" section needs to be converted to prose.

I will put the article on hold for now to allow some time for these issues to be adressed before I conducted a more detailed review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The recent improvements (increased references) are a good start, but there is still a decent amount of work to be done to reach GA status. Given the lack of comments here and the minimal article work, I'm going to go ahead and fail this for now.  However, please feel free to re-nominate after the above issues have been addressed.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing the article, but there are two points on which I disagree:
 * How would converting the "Provenance" section from bullet points to prose improve the article? If your bullet points above were prose instead, wouldn't they be less precise/effective?
 * The "Description" section mostly calls attention to details in the image of the painting beside it. How/why should they be footnoted?
 * You're right about the missing references, and I'm working to add them to the sections I contributed. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Naturally, the description section does not need vigorous referencing - one reference for the whole paragraph is probably sufficient (surely the painting is described by others that can be used as reference).
 * As to the provenance section, I will refer you to WP:PROSE: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand. But provenance is a timeline.
 * Anyway, I appreciate your reviewing it. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a few attempts with prosifying the Provenance section, but could'nt get it to work, it was all stubby sentences and had no flow. Absent fuller information, I think leaving it as it is is the best option. Im no fan of bullet points, but conceed here. Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about the lead. As the article is comprehensive overall, it should be easy to flesh this oput. Ceoil (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)