Talk:Man at the Crossroads/GA1

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 21:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Main review
1. It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):

Lead
 * "the main building of Rockefeller Center." — Two successive sentences ending with "Rockefeller Center." Perhaps "the center" instead.
 * Done.
 * "which Rivera all refused." — Suggest "all of which Rivera refused."
 * Done.
 * "was destroyed in 1934" — How?
 * I wasn't sure if that's important, but I added the method anyway. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion, but you might say "Man at the Crossroads was peeled off ans plastered over in 1934, and replaced by a mural from Josep Maria Sert three years later." Otherwise, when I read 'destroyed and replaced,' I wonder if the original fresco was simply painted over, and thus if it technically remains.
 * I have reworded the lead. The mural was first plastered over in 1933, then totally peeled off in 1934. epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "as well as" — I think this should be "as well as in".
 * Done.
 * You might add the first two sentences of the final paragraph to the end of the preceding paragraph, and letting the dramatizations be their own paragraph.
 * Done.
 * The mural appears to be significant, hence the dramatizations, but what is said significance?
 * I clarified a bit. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The infobox has very little information. What about dimensions, location, status (destroyed), medium, movement, etc.?
 * I added some parameters. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

'Commission
 * "the construction of Rockefeller Center during the 1930s." — How about "the 1930s construction of Rockefeller Center."
 * Done.
 * "63-by-17-foot (19.2 by 5.2 m" — Hyphens in one, not in the other.
 * This is handled by convert. I can't figure out how to fix this. It seems to be a template issue. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed "adj=on", which gets rid of the hyphens.
 * "John's wife" — "his wife" would avoid referring to him by only his first name.
 * Done. Although, "John Rockefeller", "Abby Rockefeller" etc. get a bit repetitive (and I can't use "Rockefeller"). I didn't do the other corrections yet. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "This had been the case since" — "since" can mean either "because" or "after", and it's a bit confusing here.
 * Since winter 1931–1932. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Abby purchased" — Again, Abby Rockefeller or "she". Last time I'll point this out, but there are several instances below as well.
 * As above, I didn't do the other corrections yet.
 * "Abby and John's friend," — "the Rockefellers' friend".
 * Done.
 * "a MoMA trustee." — I would put "(MoMA)" after "Museum of Modern Art" in the sentence above, if you're going to use the acronym.
 * Done.
 * "A turning point came" — A somewhat trite phrase, and its not clear what this "turning point" was for.
 * "to which Rivera" — Should be "at which"
 * Done.
 * "posited" — I'd suggest "suggested" instead.
 * Done.
 * "formed a close bond with Rivera and his wife" — This is vague. What did they do together?
 * Clarified.
 * "but they hired him anyway." — You don't need the "they".
 * Done.
 * "It would contrast the two paintings to either side" — Do you mean "contrast with"?
 * Done.
 * "the outer paintings along the wall" — Meaning the area where The Frontier of Ethical Evolution and The Frontier of Material Development would go, or another spot?
 * The same wall.
 * "in fresco format" — Should this be "in a fresco format"?
 * Done.
 * "he believed that they were 'inferior'." — Did he actually call them that? If so, "called them 'inferior'" would be better. There should also be an inline citation following the quotation.
 * Done.
 * "He eventually rejoined the project for a second time." — How long after, and why?
 * Done.
 * "the amount he had been paid for Detroit Industry" — How much?
 * I think this is irrelevant because this section is talking about how Rivera was lured to paint at 30 Rock, but I added it anyway. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Nelson concluded that there was nothing controversial" — Was it a concern that there would be something controversial?
 * Yes, as it mentions further down in the article. The cited source supports this claim. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "He employed several people from around the world in his six-person crew" — "several" is redundant, unless you're trying to say that several of the six weren't from NYC/the US?
 * Done.
 * "life-size" — I think you mean "full size".
 * Done.
 * "Rivera was not worried" — Technically all we can know is that "Rivera did not express worry", since we can't actually see into his head.
 * Done.
 * "not concerned, either," — Same, and you don't need the first comma.
 * Done.

Work
 * "contains influences from Communism" — Should be in past tense. How about "was influenced by Communism" instead?
 * Done.
 * "Rivera described these as 'elongated ellipses'." — Inline citation needed.
 * Done.
 * "are seen playing ... is seen holding ... while war rages ... has been struck" — Should be in past tense.
 * Done. I also reworded the last one. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "; and a socialist utopia ushered in by Lenin." — a clause following a semicolon needs to be able to stand alone as a full sentence, which this does not. A comma would work instead.
 * Done.

Destruction
 * "Rivera or one of his assistants added scenes of Moscow May Day and a portrait of Lenin" — To stir the pot, or for some other reason?
 * It was mentioned in the previous clause: In response to the article. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems odd, however, that the response to the article was to essentially give the article merit. If I said "this article has too many pictures," I wouldn't expect your reaction to be adding five more photographs. So why add Lenin after getting called out for being anti-capitalist?
 * It looks like this was for defiance. Rivera and company really wanted to stir the pot, so to speak. epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Rivera sent his assistants to look for any trace of a Lenin portrait in the blueprints" — Yet surely he would have known whether or not Lenin was in them?
 * I clarified this. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So do you mean they were looking for a place in the portrait where the addition of Lenin might go undetected? Or that he told his assistants to change the blueprints? "Rivera sent his assistants to look for any trace of a Lenin portrait in the blueprints" doesn't make sense, since—with Lenin being a post-blueprint addition—it's clear Rivera would no there was no trace of Lenin.
 * The book says that Rivera's associates looked at the blueprint to double-check anyway. It was to deceive the Rockefellers. The terms of the contract specifically prohibited any late changes, as stated earlier. epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Following the discovery of Lenin's portrait, Man at the Crossroads became embroiled in controversy" — This makes a leap from 'Lenin discovered' to 'fact that Lenin was there is widely disseminated.' Did newspapers get wind of Lenin's portrait?
 * It was internal controversy so the opening was pushed back. I clarified it. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "A letter of reply from Rivera, written on May 6, showed that he politely" — I'd delete "showed that he".
 * Done.
 * "John Sloan, Lewis Mumford, and Alfred Stieglitz ... Edwin Blashfield" — Who? What's their significance?
 * Clarified.
 * "John Sloan ... American government." — This is a run on.
 * Done.
 * "it was destroyed by workmen." — Is it known whether it was just plastered over, or was it knocked off before the replastering?
 * Workmen peeled the mural off the wall.
 * "The communist New Workers School" — Where were they?
 * Manhattan.
 * "Rivera painted 21 frescoes for them." — That seems like a lot of frescoes. What was so significant about the NWS's protests in particular?
 * If you are asking about the number of frescoes, I don't know why he chose to paint that many. I did find that the school's director was Rivera's friend. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath
 * "Abby felt 'betrayed' by Rivera" — Whose word?
 * Daniel Okrent.
 * "As a result of the controversy" — That's the third time you use the word "controversy" in the four sentence paragraph.
 * I added synonyms. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Brangwyn's mural ... ultimately featured a depiction of Christ with his back turned." — Was this signed off on, or did he just do it anyways?
 * The new line you added, "At the mural's unveiling, Brangwyn said that Rockefeller Center management had not cajoled him in any way.", doesn't appear to be supported by the source. Instead, it looks like you meant that Todd denied that Brangwyn had been pressured.
 * I have fixed that. epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, whatever happened to The Frontier of Ethical Evolution and The Frontier of Material Development? They just weren't painted? Are they in the Mexico recreation?
 * They appeared to be panels. I clarified. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Recreation
 * "photographs of the mural before it was destroyed." — What happened to these photographs? Would be nice to have one in the article.
 * They are not in the public domain. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "the main difference being that the central figure was moved slightly" — The main difference wasn't the inclusion of new portraits and the barb at the Rockefellers?
 * Artistically speaking. This was talking about the composition. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "The new version included" — Should be in present tense.
 * Done.
 * "above their heads is a dish of syphilis bacteria." — Did Rivera ever comment on his feelings towards the Rockefellers after the falling out? This would seem to suggest that he took it pretty harshly.
 * The recreation of the mural itself was his revenge, so to speak. I added a sentence for that. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Cultural significance
 * "six 'irony-laden' poems" — Whose words?
 * I removed this particular quote. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "biography Frida" — This links to a redirect.
 * WP:NOTBROKEN probably applies here. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * True. Changed it anyways since I think it's slightly preferable to avoid redirects (unless on an archived page, etc.), but change it back if there's a reason to.
 * "one could fight against [the Rockefellers] without being stabbed in the back" — What does this mean? Significance?
 * Clarified.
 * This entire section feels a bit like a bulleted list with the bullets taken out. The first sentence is a bit vague, too. Can you make this more direct in what it's trying to say, and more cohesive?
 * Clarified this too. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * b (MoS):

— Appears compliant with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):


 * Ref 1: Missing date (it's at the bottom of the page)
 * Done. Also added authors.
 * Ref 10: No page numbers. You could add this to the bibliography and then use sfn footnotes if the pages are different. Also, not required, but I usually add the parameter "lastauthoramp = yes" to get an & between the authors.
 * Removed, it's not really necessary.
 * Ref 13: Hyphenated ISBN is 978-0-948462-94-8.
 * Done.
 * Ref 21, 67, 69, 70: Why only the author's first initial? Most others have full names. (lastauthoramp again suggested for 67.)
 * It has to do with the mechanism Citer uses. I've changed them, except for E. B. White (that is the name he is best known by). epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 21, 51, 67, 69, 71: Do you really need "retrieved" dates when it's only to Google Books? I thought (but could be wrong) that the point of those was for when a source (particularly a website) might change over time, unlike printed books.
 * Removed.
 * Ref 25: Inconsistent date format (January 23, 2014 instead of 2014-01-23).
 * I used date script.
 * Ref 65: Missing author.
 * In general, I thought Wikipedia preferred only capitalizing the first letter in each word, even if the source capitalizes entire words in the title.

Works under "Sources":
 * Balfour: Hyphenated ISBN is 978-0-07-003480-8.
 * Done.
 * Okrent, Smith: Same point about "retrieved" dates.
 * Done.
 * Roussel: Inconsistent date format.
 * Done.
 * Wolfe: Why do you have page numbers, especially when the sfn citations above cite to pages outside of that range?
 * Removed. It was originally supposed to be an inline citation, but I never removed the page numbers. epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * b (citations to reliable sources):


 * Ref 33: Is this reliable? It appears to crib extensively from this very article (Earwig link). (Looking at an a version of the WP article that predates the given date for the 6sqft afticle, it is clear that the copying was not the other way around.)
 * Yeah, I'm sure that other website is a copyvio. I moved the Balfour reference, which says something to that effect. epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * c (OR):

— no apparent OR.
 * d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

— No apparent copyvios (high earwig score reflects websites copying from the article).

3. It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):

— Major aspects are covered.
 * b (focused):

— Article is focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy — Article is neutral.

5. It is stable Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

— Images are appropriately tagged.
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

— Images need alt text. File:Detalle de Lenin.jpg should have a caption. Why have the video link right there, instead of as an external link later on?

7. Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: — Nice article,, and interesting to read. Most of the review is above, and feel free to disagree with prose suggestions. I still need to take a look at the references, but will attend to that soon. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , review is now finished. I've responded to a few of your comments above, and made a few slight changes to the article. I've also added comments about the references/sources above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , looks good. Just waiting for the alt text under 6b to pass this. Are you sure WP keeps the capitalized titles from newspaper articles? It's not something to pin a GA review on, but thought I'd ask. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think lowercasing titles is a requisite for GA pass/fail (it's a minor issue). However, I have lowercased them anyway. I also added alt text. epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , looks good, passing it now. It's a nice article, congrats! Let me know if you take it to FAC. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)