Wikipedia:Peer review/Vincent van Gogh/archive2

Vincent van Gogh

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the article has undergone a very successful GAR with over 500 edits made to improve the article. Talk page discussion mentioned an interest in pursuing a WP:FAC. However, I believe that a PR is an appropriate first step in this regard.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope all you guys who helped with the GAR are watching this. I have started to address the APR above.  I will need some help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned Tony, I will stay tuned, real life permitting...Modernist (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Without having read the article; just with a quick look, a problem I see is that the article is overloaded with pictures. There must be some selection of the most representative works.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Much of the GAR was spent moving images from the gallery to the main article. I believe many visual arts articles have a lot of images.  In this case, we have the opportunity to actually show the reader what the text is talking about.  If the images can fit in the text why not include them in the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony..and an artist like Vincent van Gogh is best explained by his pictures. The text can always be expanded...Modernist (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony and Modernist, and do not think there are too many images. But still the text needs more work, especially the second part, and then we shall see, which images are necessary (perhaps even more, probably others!). --RPD (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We had hoped for more substantive feedback. I'd appreciate any additional advice that we can get for this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this needs a lot of work to get to FA, here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow, and I note that El Greco is an FA about an artist. There are probably other model FAs.
 * The lead is too short and does not seem to meet WP:LEAD - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * The discussion of other relatives named Vincent seems like it could be in the Name section - could Name and Early life be combined?
 * Speaking of names, the article says the proper spelling is "van Gogh" but the article uses both this and "Van Gogh". I think it is OK to use capital "Van Gogh" at the start of a sentence (start a sentence with a capital letter).
 * Please see Talk:Vincent_van_Gogh/Archive_1. The usage determined is "Vincent van Gogh", but "Van Gogh".  Ty  08:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Having changed them all to van Gogh, I changed them back to Van Gogh pending consensus here. IMO I prefer Van Gogh, as I noticed as I was changing them yesterday...Modernist (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article also refers to him as both van Gogh and Vincent, but the MOS says he should be called van Gogh (although calling him Vincent when he was a child is probably OK).
 * "Vincent" would be normal usage when necessary to avoid confusion in the text with other people also named Van Gogh, e.g. his brother Theo van Gogh. When this is not necessary, usage reverts to surname.  Ty  21:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article needs more refs to get through FAC - for example Vincent wished to become an artist while in God's service as he stated, "...to try to understand the real significance of what the great artists, the serious masters, tell us in their masterpieces, that leads to God; one man wrote or told it in a book; another in a picture." needs a ref as a direct quote - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref
 * Things like Diagnoses that have been put forward include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, syphilis, poisoning from swallowed paints, temporal lobe epilepsy and acute intermittent porphyria. Any of these could have been the culprit and been aggravated by malnutrition, overwork, insomnia and a fondness for alcohol and absinthe in particular (see Still Life with Absinthe, 1887). need a ref too
 * The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which impede flow and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in most cases.
 * There is not a great narrative thread in the second half of the article (after Biography)
 * van Gogh is so popular and well known that I would make sure it is as complete as possible before going to FAC, otherwise there will be people who know a lot about van Gogh asking why this or that was omitted.
 * I like his work very much, but at some point I think that less is more with images
 * I concur with this review in almost all aspects. I had essentially encouraged bringing the article here before FAC for its need for improvement. I also believe that the article could use some more heft.  At 42KB readable prose, the article could easily be augmented by a third without any controversy over its length.  This would also create turf to accommodate the abundance of images and lessen the need for removal.  However, it may be the case that some removals can not be avoided.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time and adding such important and useful comments...Modernist (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)