Talk:Jean Bellette/GA1

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

Reviewer: Arthistorygrrl (talk · contribs) 19:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment of the article's adherence to the six good article criteria (as posted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria):

1. Well-written: Pass. The article is clear, and uses standard grammar and punctuation. For the most part, the transitions and organization make sense and give the article good flow. I see only one possible typo, which is the misspelling of "joylessness" as "joylessncss" in the long quotation from The Sydney Morning Herald. This is easily remedied.
 * Fixed.

2. Verifiable: Partial pass. Most of the article contains appropriate, verifiable citations. There are three areas where I think citations are needed: -"In 1942, Bellette won the Sir John Sulman Prize, with her work For Whom the Bell Tolls." -"Her choice of subject matter, and the approach she took to it, placed her at odds with mainstream modernism. She also seemed to shun   explicit links between the classical and the Australian." --Citations, and perhaps even expansion of these ideas, would enhance the article -"Bellette and her husband in 1957 left Australia intending to divorce quietly."
 * All of these are cited - in each case, there is more than one consecutive sentence attributable to the source in question, and the cite is at the end of the series of two or three sentences based upon that source. However, I realise I didn't stick to a single approach to citations. I have actually removed two footnote tags, so that (I hope) the whole article follows the principle that the citation comes at the end of however many sentences are attributed only to that source or sources. (An exception to this is where there is a direct quote, in which case (I hope) i have cited the source at the end of that sentence, even if the same source is then used for the sentences that follow).hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage: Pass. The article outlines Bellette's life and career and is written in a manner that will make it useful for a general audience. Specific information is provided about particular paintings that are notable either because they won awards or are included in prominent collections.

4. Neutral: Pass. One strength of the article is its neutral presentation of different opinions on Bellette's work and relevance to art history.

5. Stable: Pass

6. Illustrated: Partial pass. The article contains two images, but only one (of Bellette's work) enhances the article. The image of Thea Proctor does not detract from the content of the article, but neither does it enhance it or help explain a key point. There is no image of Bellette herself, and this should be remedied if possible.
 * Providing images for twentieth century artist articles, as you probably know, is very difficult. The only pre-1955 photograph of Bellette that I am aware of is this but, itself being a work by the artist Max Dupain, will be treated as an artwork and therefore still in copyright (Dupain having lived until the 1990s). Thus i do not believe an image can be included (my understanding is that a photograph would not meet fair use criteria, but I may be wrong about that). Any painting by Bellette has to be justified under the fair use criteria - the one image so included can be defended because it is explicitly discussed in the text. If you have any further thoughts or suggestions, they will be gratefully received! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A few revisions are needed, but this is close to meeting the criteria for being classified as a good article. Arthistorygrrl (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)