Talk:Landscape painting in Scotland/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) 09:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The article looks good on casual surfing through. Will start the review of this and do minor corrections myself. Will come back with other points here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for taking this on.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

General

 * WP:ALT is missing on all images.
 * It is not a requirement of GA status.--  SabreBD  (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought WP:ACCESS was quite a basic thing to be followed by all articles. And any of the featured quality contents should hence follow it by default. Anyways.
 * It is required at FA status but not for GA.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay! I will do it myself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * References very much look like they are using standard templates. But Template:Cite book, Template:Cite web should be used. Template:Sfn to be used for repeated references to same books. Also, wherever possible, books can also be linked to google book copies. That’s makes it easy for readers to reach the source.
 * They are in a valid format. No particular format is proscribed in the guidelines.
 * This formats aren't really helpful much. Also they have no online links to references making it difficult to check. Would you still consider doing this despite no criteria writing it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is still possible to link to google books if an editor wishes, however, this is also not a requirement unless someone has changed a guideline I am not aware of. I do not wish to change this as these template formats make it difficult for me to use existing materials as the basis for new articles.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it okay if I change the references then? Because I am finding it impossible to review the references like this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are going to have to get used to them, they are used a lot on Wikipedia.--  SabreBD  (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * All images are from Commons and properly licensed
 * No disambiguation links found
 * No copyvios likely from Earwig's Copyvio Detector

Content

 * Can we add medium of each painting in the captions? If it's available for all then let's do it. I have started adding medium and such info on the individual files at Commons. Only one remains...
 * File:McCulloch Horatio Loch Lomond.jpg, Oil on canvas
 * File:KeirincxSetonPalace1638.jpg, Oil on panel
 * File:JacobMoreNG 1897.jpg, Oil on canvas
 * File:Alexander Nasmyth - Princes Street with the Commencement of the Building of the Royal Institution - Google Art Project.jpg, Oil on canvas
 * File:McTaggart, The Storm.jpg, Oil on canvas
 * File:Samuel Peploe, Iona, 1933.jpg, ???
 * File:WilliamCrozier, Edinburgh from Salisbury Crags.jpg, Oil on canvas


 * And this exercise tells us that all the images we have chosen to show are oil paintings. How about looking for different mediums? Aren't watercolours quite popular for landscapes?
 * I am pretty sure that he Peploe of Iona is watercolour. This may also tell us that more "important" paintings are in oil.--  SabreBD  (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not really understanding the meaning of this sentence: "Among the heraldry, classical myths and allegory were a number of painted landscape scenes." Disclaimer: Am not native English speaker.
 * Not quite sure what the issue is here because it seems straight forward to me, but I have tried to rephrase it, hopefully that is clearer.--  SabreBD  (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Is the abbreviation "fl." Very common and understandable like "b.", "d.", and "ca."? Or should the first occurrence be wikilinked to Floruit?
 * It is very common in art, given that we often do not know the dates of birth and date of artists. We could wikilink it. A better solution would be a template, like the one used for [sic]. I will see if I can work how to do one.--  SabreBD  (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot work out how to do a template at the moment, so I will just link the first one.--  SabreBD  (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikilink these: Hugh William Williams, Trossachs, Iona, Edinburgh College of Art, Glasgow School of Art, Kincardineshire, Clyde Group. Check for more possible wikilinks.
 * ✅, except Clyde Group, which just goes to New Scottish Group, which is already linked.


 * Is the Ben More mentioned refers to Ben More (Mull)? Wikilink it.
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Knox directly linked Nasmyth's style with the Romantic literature of Walter Scott. His Landscape with Tourists at Lock Katrine (c. 1820), was a commentary on the tourist trade that grew up in the Trossachs in the aftermath of the publication of Scott's poem The Lady of the Lake in 1810." --> Reading reference I understand that the first "his" in this second sentence stands for Knox. Won't readers be confused whether this "his" is for Knox or Nasmyth?
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ref 18, Picturing Scotland Through the Waverley Novels: Walter Scott and the Origins of the Victorian Illustrated Novel uses ISBN 0754668061 which is wrong. Use ISBN 1409476170 or ISBN 9781409476177.
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Query
Dharmadhyaksha, Sabrebd, where does this review stand? It's been a month since anything was posted here, and there's only been a single typo fix to the article in that interval. Can we get this moving again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, but I am waiting for more review.--  SabreBD  (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello I have been busy in personal life and hence not finding much wiki time since few weeks. Am sorry to have kept this in limbo. The article is very much in good shape and i only have to check the references now. But i will not get time for that until next weekend. I dont see any need to fail it on the delay grounds; if thats what some editors are thinking of doing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is OK if you can do it at the weekend. The fail option was only if you could not complete. Thanks.--  SabreBD  (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• 1a - Done
 * The six good article criteria checks:

• 1b - Done

• 2a - Done

• 2b - Done

• 2c - Done

• 2d - Done

• 3a - Done

• 3b - Done

• 4 - Done

• 5 - Done

• : 6a - Done

• : 6b - Done Congratulations for the new GA!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)