Talk:James Sillett/GA1

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

Reviewer: Johnbod (talk · contribs) 16:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems pretty much there, but both text and captions could do with more detail on the various techniques/media he worked in. Images should almost never be fixed as low as 150px (or indeed below the default). Some of the gallery should perhaps be moved to text, and the rest split into a couple of mini-galleries. Eg, if his best work was the still-lifes, you shouldn't need to wait for the gallery to see one. There are some more attractive images than those now used that could be uploaded from Norwich, it seems to me. Refs used look excellent, & writing is good. The final para could do with splitting, and the first para in the section would be better in the lead, imo. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The 150px images in the text have been enlarged. Amitchell125 20:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reputation section organised into 3 paragraphs. Amitchell125 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Lead section expanded to include original first paragraph of the Reputation section. Amitchell125 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The number of (more attractive) images from Norfolk Museums Collections has been increased Amitchell125 11:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Text and captions now contain details about Sillett's media and techniques where appropriate. Amitchell125 11:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, the gallery "Landscapes and archtectural drawings" doesn't actually contain any of the latter (though Norwich has many good ones), but duplicates the print of St Julian's. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The drawing you've added is given the eccentric description (missing word?) "monochrome over pencil on paper" by the museum, which presumably means a pencil drawing then painted with wash. You've dropped the "pencil", so not making clear it is a drawing not a print (which your "monochrome on paper" might suggest). Adjust that & I think we're there. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a print. Looking at the record for the drawing of the Octagon Chapel, says 'monochrome on paper' without mentioning 'over pencil', shows the WikiCommons entry needs to be amended, not the caption in James Sillett. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps you could do that. In this case the section still lacks one or more of the promised "archtectural drawings". Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * New image added, a drawing of Sillett's of a lost church. There is now no longer any reference in the article to architectural drawings, as Sillett only painted/etched/drew buildings topographically, and didn't produce architectural drawings as such. Also, WikiCommons text (Octagon Chapel image) amended according to your suggestion. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, passing, Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)