Talk:Luise Duttenhofer/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Nominator: Kusma (talk · contribs) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and one I would like to add to the Good Article Edit-a-thon Going Back in Time running at the moment. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard is high.
• It is of sufficient length, with 1,152 words of readable prose.
• The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 186 words.
• 90.5% of authorship is by Kusma, with contributions from 14 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • Reword "Among her subjects were mythology and ornament but also scenes of everyday life." In the lead.
     • Rewritten; I was not sure what exactly you were after, so please let me know if I made it worse.
   • Consider adding a comma after "meeting many German artists".
     • Done.
   • Consider rewording "She often displayed scenes from religion or mythology or from her everyday life."
     • Again, done.
   • I can see no obvious spelling or grammar issues.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • Replace "in Stuttgart– Jakob Friedrich" with "in Stuttgart, Jakob Friedrich".
     • Done.
   • The layout is otherwise consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Sedda 2009 finishes on page 128, so please check the sources from pages 180 and 182.

     I actually wanted to cite Sedda 2014. Thank you for your vigilance!

   • Fiege 1979 links to the worldcat entry.

     Removed worldcat urls.

   it contains no original research;

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 5.7% chance of copyright violation, which means it is very unlikely.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • Key facts are covered.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article is compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The text seems clear and neutral, including a range of views.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images are marked as public domain.
   • Duttenhofer, Luise, Angelika Kauffmann in ihrem Atelier.jpg, Duttenhofer, Luise, Friedrich Haug, einen Faun tanzen lassend.jpg and Duttenhofer, Luise, Luise Duttenhofer als Psyche, der die Flügel gestutzt werden.jpg lack US PD tags.

     Added.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • Images are relevant, although the infobox image is fuzzy.

     Don't really know what to do about the fuzziness. Other images I know of are self-portrait papercuts like here and I only found out today about the existence of an excellent drawing here, but it probably is not PD in Germany or in the US.

     Thank you for trying.

@Kusma: Excellent work. Please take a look at more comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Simongraham, thank you very much for the review! I think I have answered all of your queries, please let me know if there is anything else. —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma: That is great work. Congratulations. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Pass

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.