Talk:Brushstrokes series/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 03:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review, comments to follow in the next couple days. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article, looks good thus far. A few comments on the lead and first section.
"The series is considered a satire or parody of gestural painting." Might want to note who considers it, the painter or critics (or both)?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The works in this series are linked to those produced by the gestural painting style" Is there a better way to word this? i.e. "produced by artists who use the gestural painting style"?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to link the artists in the first paragraph of "Background".
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Later he produced an 8-print Brushstroke Figures" Should this be "eight-print"?
- Yes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check for consistency in capitalizing "Abstract Expressionism".
Might want to double check the ellipsis use for compliance with MOS:ELLIPSIS. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have it now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience, resuming review:
"The satirical element of the Brushstroke was obvious to many because it is a calculated presentation of the spontaneous gestural works of the day." Is there a good way to keep the same tense here, to avoid the "was... is".
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph of "Details" you use "depict", might want to try for some more variation.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"it was Pollack who brought dynamic movement to the canvas in the 1950s" This is the first mention of him, so you might want to introduce him, or at least add a link.
- He is already linked above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahh, I see what the problem was now ([1]), I hadn't noticed the typo either. I had done a control+f for "Pollack" and didn't get any other hits. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" in works such as" occurs in consecutive sentences, might want to rephrase one.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" He expropriated the most basic element of Expressionism in his own style both in painting and in sculpture." Is the use of the capital correct here?
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the last paragraph of "Details" and "Critical response" you should probably identify who you're quoting in text.
The last paragraph of "Details" doesn't seem to flow very well to me. I know that's a pretty vague comment, (I hate when reviewers are vague) I'll reread it again later and try to explain my thoughts better. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it any better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I think that cleared things up, passing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.