Talk:Gürdal Duyar/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 22:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Hi Ganesha811, thanks for taking up this review. I have adressed the concerns you had about apparent original research in certain paragraphs .--Gazozlu (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick fix! This is a very interesting subject and I'm learning a lot about Turkish art as I review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. I'm glad that the subject is interesting to you. I've clarified the source of the Guzel Istanbul image and have contacted the presumed author of the other image to see if they can confirm that they are the author of that photo. I've also addressed the citation placement issue across the article that you mentioned. Gazozlu (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The author of the Abdi Ipekci Monument photo has confirmed that they are the author of the photo. Gazozlu (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ganesha811 About your question on an image of Duyar. I have ineed found two good profile images of him, here on the Geni website and this photo of a photo in an online article, I assume originally taken from a book. However I don't know if there is a rationale that would let either of those be used without copyright problems. Gazozlu (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Same goes for photos of his old sculptures that have since been removed/destroyed and thus lost forever if not for some good photos in the two book sources (Elibal 1973 pages 290,293) and (Berk & Gezer 1973 pages 197-200) which have been archived by archive.org, which would be great additions to the article if there is some rationale that would let them be used in the articles. However I am not familiar with what that rationale would be or if it would be allowed at all. Gazozlu (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would check the images against these two pages on Commons (Turkey guidelines, PD-Turkey) and see if any are public domain or otherwise usable. If you're unsure you can ask at the Help Desk on Commons. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I read about non-free use rationale and uploaded one of the images with a rationale for its use. Gazozlu (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

, question for you: as I start to go through this in more detail, I'm seeing quite a few prose, structure, and referencing issues pop up. They're all fixable, but it will be a fair bit of work. Are you available over the next few days to take this on? I understand this is your first GA nomination, so you are probably eager to see this through. However, we could put the nomination on hold for a couple weeks to allow someone from the WP:GUILD of Copyeditors to come and go through the article. That might improve it significantly. Overall, it's a high quality article with a lot of good material, it's just a little messy and disorganized at the moment. 11:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it sounds like a good idea to let someone from the WP:GUILD to come look at the article. Could you initiate such a request to them on my behalf? In the mean time I did end up finding some photos that appear to be usable under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 and uploaded them, and also started to navigate the non-free fair use rationale. So i'll be adding some more photos in the mean time, which might be alot of new content all at once, so putting it on hold might be a good idea so that you are not reviewing in the midst of large additions to the article.--Gazozlu (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's best if you make the request yourself - you can do so here. Go ahead and make improvements/expansions before a copyeditor arrives. In the meantime, I'll put the review on hold for two weeks and we can reconvene then. Thanks for your hard work on it so far! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Allright I will make the request. Thank you too for your efforts in helping me improve the article. Gazozlu (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

, as you work on the article during the hold, here are three featured articles of very high quality you can look at for inspiration: Bronwyn Oliver, Henry Moore, Herbert Maryon - they are all about sculptors. It might be helpful to take a look at them as you structure and shape this article. Happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll definitely check them out. One thing i've been looking for was a good or feature article about an artist with a list of exhibitions. Not only for the format, but i've been wondering if I should mention or include more references to the exhibitions in the "Life and education" section, i'm unsure because there are almost no secondary sources discussing the exhibitions. The "Select exhibitions" section is based largely on primary sources or mentions in secondary sources.
 * The same goes for including more works from the "Major works" section in the "Life and education" section, I am avoiding that because it would probably be too much repetition, but maybe it is expected/better if every major work gets at least mentioned by name in the "Life and education section"? Gazozlu (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it's best to incorporate content about his major works into a single narrative with his life and education, but you can check out other featured biographies on artists (here's all of them) to get some ideas of how it could work. Generally, if there are no secondary sources discussing the exhibition, it's probably not notable enough to be mentioned. This is an encyclopedia article, after all, a summary of someone's life, not a resume. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, that shoudln't be that difficult to swap to at this point because everything in major works is largely organised by time. I think the advantage of having the major works as a separate section is that it allows for more detail per work, such as technical specifications, history, later events (such as a sculpture being removed at a point way later than where in the timeline of the current prose is at), and other details about that specific work that would otherwise mess with the flow of a more general narrative. But I see now that virtually all the feature article examples are in the way that you mentioned. Gazozlu (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Remember that this article should be focused on Duyar the person. Discussing his work is important, of course, but even his most notable works should be talked about not from an art history or technical perspective but from a perspective of him, his career and his life. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Allright i'll start with re-organising the article in that way. I am done with expanding the article and its current state will likely be its most expanded form from my input, at least for a while. I'll note here for potential future reference. Gazozlu (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "For future reference" this FA: William Burges has a list of works, and these FAs:André Kertész, Makinti Napanangka have a list of exhibitions.--Gazozlu (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've finished with restructuring the article, i've shredded off parts including the "Major works" section entirely. Also an update on the images: turns out the images from the Salt Research archives are non-derivative 4.0 and thus not allowed on commons so I had to delete them. I have used an image from the Salt Research archives and from elsewhere and uploaded them locally with a rationale. I added quite a few more images to support the article. Also an editor from the guild has stopped by and made some edits although not a full copyedit of the article yet. Gazozlu (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright! Thank you for your hard work. Let me know when you would like me to re-open the review and dive back in. Otherwise I'm happy to wait until the 2-week hold is up. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! From my perspective it looks like a good time to re-open it, so let's do that. Gazozlu (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ganesha811, quick question, is the "Broken" point at 1b something that needs to be addressed or is this meant to just be a note for yourself? --Gazozlu (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Whoops, that is not an issue, just a spare phrase from when I was moving stuff around re: redlinks. By the way, I've slowed down a little - some real life stuff means I will have to do my prose review slowly over the next few days, but I am definitely still working on this review and we should get there pretty soon. You've put in a lot of excellent work improving this article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. Take your time, I appreciate the quality review. Hope all is fine or will be fine with your real life stuff. Gazozlu (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, there are a lot of prose issues, so I'm going slowly, but so far nothing that would prevent this article reaching GA! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This article now passes GA! See some final comments above re: the list of exhibitions, but we are at the GA standard. Congrats to and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)