Talk:Romaine Brooks/GA1

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

GA Sweeps: On hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found an issue that needs to be addressed.


 * 1) The article currently has nine non-free images. This needs to be cut down to three or four at most. I would suggest the main image, the piano image, and one or two others that are discussed in detail in the text. An external link is already provided which shows all of her images, so readers can visit the link if they want to see some of these images.

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should maintain its GA status. Actually there are only 4 non-free images. The rest qualify under {[pd-1923-abroad]} as they were publically exhibited before 1923. I think the four can remain...Modernist (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept
Thanks for clarifying on the images. Any of the free images, if free in the originating country, should be moved to Commons so others can benefit from their use. I believe there is sufficient rationale for the non-free images for GA, but there may be some issues if this article were to head to FAC at some point. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job, thank you...Modernist (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)