Talk:Luise Duttenhofer/GA1

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

Nominator: 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and one I would like to add to the Good Article Edit-a-thon Going Back in Time running at the moment. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * Overall, the standard is high.
 * It is of sufficient length, with 1,152 words of readable prose.
 * The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 186 words.
 * 90.5% of authorship is by Kusma, with contributions from 14 other editors.
 * It is currently assessed as a B class article.

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * Reword "Among her subjects were mythology and ornament but also scenes of everyday life." In the lead.
 * Rewritten; I was not sure what exactly you were after, so please let me know if I made it worse.
 * Consider adding a comma after "meeting many German artists".
 * Done.
 * Consider rewording "She often displayed scenes from religion or mythology or from her everyday life."
 * Again, done.
 * I can see no obvious spelling or grammar issues.
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * Replace "in Stuttgart– Jakob Friedrich" with "in Stuttgart, Jakob Friedrich".
 * Done.
 * The layout is otherwise consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * A reference section is included, with sources listed.
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * Sedda 2009 finishes on page 128, so please check the sources from pages 180 and 182.
 * I actually wanted to cite Sedda 2014. Thank you for your vigilance!
 * Fiege 1979 links to the worldcat entry.
 * Removed worldcat urls.
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * Earwig gives a 5.7% chance of copyright violation, which means it is very unlikely.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * Key facts are covered.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * The article is compliant.
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * The text seems clear and neutral, including a range of views.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * The images are marked as public domain.
 * Duttenhofer, Luise, Angelika Kauffmann in ihrem Atelier.jpg, Duttenhofer, Luise, Friedrich Haug, einen Faun tanzen lassend.jpg and Duttenhofer, Luise, Luise Duttenhofer als Psyche, der die Flügel gestutzt werden.jpg lack US PD tags.
 * Added.
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Images are relevant, although the infobox image is fuzzy.
 * Don't really know what to do about the fuzziness. Other images I know of are self-portrait papercuts like here and I only found out today about the existence of an excellent drawing here, but it probably is not PD in Germany or in the US.
 * Thank you for trying.

Excellent work. Please take a look at more comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Simongraham, thank you very much for the review! I think I have answered all of your queries, please let me know if there is anything else. —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is great work. Congratulations. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Pass