Talk:Ernest Brooks (photographer)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 20:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, I am reviewing this article and will be adding comments below.[reply]

In general, I am concerned that the captions to the photos have no references, as they express opinions and evaluations that go beyond a neutral statement about the photo.

I've dropped the comment from one, and I'm thinking about how to handle the other. (It is widely used, but I'm not sure how best to source that!) This ties in below, I think. Shimgray | talk | 22:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

" but many of his less conventional images - often involving a distinctive use of silhouette - have become iconic." - this statement does not appear to be in the body of the article and is unreferenced.

Silhouette's cited in the critical discussion below. The iconic thing is, as above, something that's annoying me - these images are everywhere to illustrate the Western Front, but I've not been able to find anyone explicitly saying so. It looks like it might be worth casting my net wider, so I've requested a few general works on WWI photography from the library and I'll dig through them on Monday to see if they say anything about him. Shimgray | talk | 22:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

This section should have a different title, as the whole article is a "biography".

Hum... yes and no. There's a clear split between biographical details and discussion of his photography as photography - perhaps "career"? Shimgray | talk | 22:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"However, he later returned to royal service, accompanying the Prince of Wales on his tour of Australia in 1920 as the official photographer, and by the following year had also been appointed official photographer to the King and Queen.[11] However, his appointment was cancelled in 1925, for undisclosed reasons." - these two sentences in a row start with "however".

Tidied. Shimgray | talk | 22:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I may add more comments)

Xtzou (Talk) 20:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about needing "iconic" in the article, as it makes the point about this photographer without use of that word. Xtzou (Talk) 22:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so :-). I've dropped "iconic" for the time being, but I'll see if I can dig up some clearer commentary on this tomorrow. Shimgray | talk | 16:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think you need references for the captions, as nothing on the original photo upload says these men were "heavily laden", for example. Xtzou (Talk) 17:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've sourced them to the IWM and NLS catalogues - unfortunately I can't directly link to the IWM records, but the reference number should make it simple enough. Shimgray | talk | 17:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you give some references, as the same photos used in different articles have more straight forward captions. At least two other captions for the photo of wounded soldiers says they are German and British wounded soldiers. Xtzou (Talk) 17:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'm satisfied. I went through his pictures on the Commons and found that many of them are used in wikipedia articles. I labeled them as such. Xtzou (Talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Clearly and concisely written.

B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MoS
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Reliable sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Sets the context

B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]