Talk:Netherlandish Proverbs/GA1

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 15:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have three fundamental problems with this article, which afraid in my judgement preclude it from meeting the GA criteria at this time:
 * The article isn't about the painting, as the title would suggest, therefore it fails to meet GA criterion 3a.
 * It's basically a list with a short introduction; lists are not accommodated by GAN, they're dealt with at FLC.
 * The claimed proverbs aren't proverbs at all; a proverb is a complete sentence, not a fragment such as "To be a pillar-biter". I note that at the previous FLC nomination the suggestion was made to rename the article to something like "List of idioms pictured in Netherlandish Proverbs", which deserved some consideration.

Consequently I'm closing this review as "not listed". Eric  Corbett  15:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Thank you for looking the article over. I'm afraid that I disagree with your suggestion and thought I should present my reasons:


 * The article clearly is about the painting. The painting depicts proverbs, the article (and list) deals with those presented in the painting. Subject, is after all, a fundamental part of any painting and this one is, effectively, a collage of a number of smaller ones. Picking each out (and explaining its significance) is therefore fundamental to understanding the painting.
 * What this means is that, though in a literal sense it is a list, it should be judged under the GA criteria. The subject is not nearly important (or notable) enough to split it - the list serves as an analysis of the proverbs which are depicted in the painting. Because it is, as explained above, a collage of many scenes, a list is the only way to consider it suitably in what would usually be regarded as a "subject" section.
 * As to the divide between proverbs/idioms/sayings, "...Spreekwoorden" 1 is the traditional title of the painting and it translates as "Proverb" in English, because it has a "morele implicatie". This isn't about value judgments, this is about

I'd be interested to know your thoughts. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are exactly as I stated above. The article tells me almost nothing about the painting and the so-called proverbs aren't proverbs at all. If you disagree with my assessment then you are quite at liberty to ask for a reassessment at WP:GAR. Eric   Corbett  17:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that. Brigade Piron (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Eric suggested I have a look; I have to concur with his assessment. Going through GAR strikes me as a waste of time, since I don't see how this could be listed as GA. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not to say, by the way, that I'm not impressed by your work. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)