Wikipedia:Peer review/Caravaggio/archive1

Caravaggio[edit]

A lot of work has been put into this article recently by several editors, just thought Id put it up for peer review Cfitzart 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. The only thing I'd change is putting the uncertainties at the end of the biography instead of the beginning, or even better working them into the sibling sections. Nrcprm2026 03:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Maybe it would be better off in a different section, separate from Biography? Cfitzart 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with breaking up Uncertainties and distributing it into subsections whereever appropriate.
The subsection on Exile and death could be split in two, Naples/Malta and Malta/Naples, so that it matches the division in the Major Works article.
I think the entire section - all the subsections - on Caravaggio the Artist could be substantially strengthened, though without lengthening the article which is already quite long.
Referencing within the article is weak - the various quotes come from the various books listed under References (mostly), and if I knew how to do those little carets I could make the links - plus there are probably unacknowledged web-sources that should be noted.
It would be nice if the illustrations - which are super - could be moved so that paintings from a particluar part of his life were next to the appropraite sections in the biography. PiCo 13:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very nice article! Here's what I would suggest.

The introduction needs to be longer. For an article of this size it should be 2 to 3 good paragraphs in length. Sum up the article.
Compared to the size of the pics in the later sections, the pics in the early sections seem a bit small.
This article really needs footnotes. In addition to footnoting, the Further reading section should be renamed "References" and you should also probably remove the links to reviews of each book.
The See also section could be done away with as well. If the articles are not linked within the text, they should be (certainly van ~~Meergeren~~ and the Caravaggio movie should be mentioned in the text), or in the case of the lists, I don't think linking them is vital as it does not provide any more information on Caravaggio. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC) & Jerzy•t 01:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have presumed to convert to strikeout the seductive misspelling of the name of Han van Meegeren in the immediately preceding contribution. It's author is far from the only WP editor to misspell this tricky name, but i'm trying to be thoro in correcting all the article instances, and keeping anyone from mistakenly imitating this signed instance.
--Jerzy•t 01:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a References section for you. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for details. (SEWilco 05:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have:

deleted Uncertainties

written an introduction

had a play with the size of earlier illustrations (others might like to try also)

done away with the See Also section

linkified all paintings mentioned in the text

I've also carried out a few edits on the text but nothing too major - but one illustration goit chopped because there was no longer room for it after Uncertainties got deleted.

Might also suggest, if anyone wants to do this, moving the illustrations round so that they sit in the bio period appropriate to them.

So is it now ready to be put up as a featured article? PiCo 00:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]