Jump to content

Talk:Iso Rae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 07:47, 24 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Women artists}}, {{WikiProject Australia}}, {{WikiProject Visual arts}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articleIso Rae has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 28, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 11, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that despite being Australian artists of a war, neither Jessie Traill (pictured) nor Iso Rae were Australian war artists?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 16, 2018, and March 16, 2020.

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Iso Rae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Right then......let's see.....
If there was a way that we could not start the second sentence in the lead with "Rae..." it'd be good as we're repeating her name from sentence one, but "She..." looks a bit odd there I concede...
Reworked. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
as an aside, should Etaples art colony be at Étaples art colony? If not, then we need a redirect....
One would think so but, for whatever reason - possibly including the inability of art galleries to find how to type an "É" in html - it seems quite common for reliable sources to not use the acute, so i think it can stay. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"longest-term residents"- an apt description but odd construction of words - be nice if we could come up with another way of wording it....can't think of one
Since she wasn't the longest term, i decided not to make a thing of it, so it now simply reads "Rae became a long-term resident at the Étaples colony"hamiltonstone (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
any significant works that can be discussed would be a big plus - seems odd to have an article on an artist and not have any works discussed
Have addressed this via the war works - which i discovered are public domain! hooray! hamiltonstone (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
another artist that died in a mental hospital - wow. Any extra info here would be good....but hard to find I wager.
Nothing in what i have read to date, and i've gone back over everything i think. Not something people tend to record except in full-length bios - and there isn't one of her. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thought that might be the case....my other thought was getting a death cert....but seems a bit extreme and more for genealogy than wikipedia...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A location for Musée du Touquet would be good to give it context.
Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this source mentions the 75 works being bought by the AWM - would be good to add.
75 in Oz - 11 by the AWM - yes, i must have been lazy and didn't make full use of that article. I hope I've corrected that now. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The war material is fascinating, as are the pastels - if we can get any more of this sort of info into the article that'd be good.
Have added more detail from that article. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice read overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·