Talk:Les Demoiselles d'Avignon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 23:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm just sort of shocked that this has never been nominated for GAN or FAC, so far as I can tell. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The image of the painting itself was nominated as a featured picture candidate in July 2010, and appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 July 2011. But yes, this article has certainly evolved since then, and deserves the nomination. Coldcreation (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * One thing I've noticed, due to the works of varying editors over time; Picasso's 'influences' are scattered about the article. I will attempt to group these influences. Though it demands a major restructuring of the article. Better now than later. Coldcreation (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and restructured the article. Now all of the subsections on Picasso's influences, formerly scattered throughout, are grouped together under the header Influences, and corresponding subheaders. The prior construction of the article may not have affected GA status, but regardless, the article is now more coherent and organized. Coldcreation (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! --  Zanimum (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Having written most of this article I'm shocked to this here frankly, what's the point?...Modernist (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Modernist, what exactly are you shocked about, that the article has been nominated for GA or that the article has been restructured (to regroup influences)? Note, all of your valuable contributions are still in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, what's the point...Modernist (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the point of GA is. As far as changes to article go, pretty sure it's better now than it was before. The point was to organize and article that was disorganized (partly because of some of my earlier edits, and others). Would you not agree?Coldcreation (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, having written and put together most of this article; I have no interest in this BS rating crap. Yes this is a great article; and yes it can be improved. And I don't see the point of this, rating crap...Modernist (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally understand your point about GA status. So you're satisfied with the recent changes made to the article? Coldcreation (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing review page
This article was nominated for GA by Zanimum, who then proceeded to open this review page. Nominators are not allowed to review their own nominations, so I'm putting the nomination back into the reviewing pool so an independent reviewer can select this. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)