Talk:Still Life with Books/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 16:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. Bruxton (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): There are issues with the prose that need to be addressed, see following comments.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): The lead section is not a summary of the main points of the article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism): No issues found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects): The article does not full cover the topic (see following comments).
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail: The above check list may change once the article has been expanded or amended.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects): The article does not full cover the topic (see following comments).
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail: The above check list may change once the article has been expanded or amended.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail: The above check list may change once the article has been expanded or amended.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail: The above check list may change once the article has been expanded or amended.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail: The above check list may change once the article has been expanded or amended.
 * Pass/fail: The above check list may change once the article has been expanded or amended.

Lead section / infobox

 * ✅ The lead section needs to be expanded so as to be a summary of the body. See WP:LEAD for more information.
 * The painting privately owned - 'The painting was privately owned'; It is an example of - 'The work is an example of'. ✅


 * ✅ In the infobox, Still should read ‘Still life’, and be linked.
 * I think done


 * ✅ (Dutch: Stilleven met boeken) should be amended using Stilleven met boeken.
 * when I use that abbreviation it renders as Nepali language. Bruxton (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Oil-on-panel has no capital (the link still works without it). The same thing occurs in the Description section.
 * ✅ vanitas should be in italics throughout the article.

History

 * ✅ Link Rijksmuseum; pitcher (Pitcher (container).
 * ✅ The painting – the work needs to be named in full at the start of this section.
 * ✅ Rembrandt - needs to be introduced here.
 * ✅ The section requires some copy editing to improve the quality of the prose.
 * ✅ February 6, 2009 to April 26 2009 – 6 February 2009 to 26 April 2009 looks better imo.
 * ✅ The article does not explain in any way the reason why the painting was misattributed for so long, or the circumstances surrounding the change in attribution.
 * ✅ The painting was in private collections - ‘The painting was privately owned’ sounds better imo.
 * ✅ This contains the provenance of the painting, which should be included somewhere in the article.	I figured it out and it enhanced the article

Description

 * ✅ Link still-life (written ‘still life’); parchment; pewter;
 * I think done


 * ✅ Link palette (Palette (painting)).
 * ✅ This article is about a related painting, which I think should be mentioned in some way, perhaps in this section.

On hold
I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 23 March to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Passing
Passing now, good work! Amitchell125 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)