Talk:Self-Portrait with Halo and Snake/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 12:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * "Gauguin's Self-Portrait is exhibited in the Chester Dale Collection at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C." -it would be good to know when they acquired it.
 * It was gifted to the NGA by Chester Dale upon his death in late December 1962. But maybe the NGA paperwork didn't go through until 1963. So the NGA acquired it from Dale upon his death in 1962 in one sense, and in another, 1963. I'll play around with it. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Background
 * polychromed figures -a link to polychrome art?
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Description
 * "The work shows the influence of Japanese wood-block prints and cloisonnism." -do any commentators mention any specific Japanese works/artists as an influence or do they just say in general?
 * Cachin refers to the visage of "popular actors", presumably Japanese, that appeared in the wood-block prints. I'll keep looking for more detail. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Provenance
 * "The painting passed through several different owners until American banker Chester Dale acquired it in 1928.[18" -a bit vague, I think you should try to document as many owners as possible. Perhaps mention one or two more if you have the sources?♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A lovely little article, good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Will pass once the above are addressed, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Will start on it now. Thank you for reviewing. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm going to pass it anyway. Up to you if you think the other points are worth addressing. I could find very little to pick on with it. Keep up the good work!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: