Talk:Pietro Annigoni's portraits of Elizabeth II

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

British Royalty Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pietro Annigoni's portraits of Elizabeth II 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.
Review: August 15, 2016. (Reviewed version).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pietro Annigoni's portraits of Elizabeth II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 15:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 15:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

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

B. Focused (see summary style):
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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

The lead seems a little sparse. At the very least it should include information about the 1972 drawing, but I would recommend also including a summary of information on the reception of the paintings.

I updated the Fair Use Rationales of the portraits. As a note, even if the reasoning is obvious (a unique work that cannot be replaced) that needs to be stated in the rationale rather than just "NA" because the criteria is applicable.
I would recommend reorganizing the first section so that it flows better.
If there's any way to expand the 1972 section, I would suggest that, especially if an image for that can be found.
Sandwiching text between two images is discouraged, so I would recommend either moving or removing the Jane Seymour image.

Results[edit]

On hold for 7 days. Short, but still well on its way to GA status I feel. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 16:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt review. I will start this tomorrow. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status request[edit]

Wugapodes, Philafrenzy, what is the status of this nomination? It's been over a month since the last post here, and the article itself has not been edited since the review was opened. Will there be any progress soon, or should the review be closed? Thanks for taking a look. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, wow, I forgot about this. My bad. Philafrenzy, I'm going to close this on 14 August, hopefully you can address these issues before then. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It slipped through my net too. I am starting it now. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead expanded to cover reception and 1972 drawing.

First section re-ordered.

Pictures re-arranged.

I can't find an acceptable image of the 1972 drawing. There is one in The Times article but it is black and white a very grainy.

The 1972 drawing is really only in for completeness. It's very much a minor work that he probably only did for the money and doesn't justify a fuller treatment I think. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil. Maybe pg move to Elizabeth II (Annigoni). Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't think people would understand what the article was about with that title? Philafrenzy (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: It's really close. One thing that I just noticed is the first lead sentence reads: "Pietro Annigoni completed a number of portraits of Queen Elizabeth II between 1954-55 and in 1969." This should be more precise. Since the article covers more than just those two paintings, it should be reflected in the lead as well. I was thinking "Pietro Annigoni completed three portraits of Queen Elizabeth II between 1954 and 1972" but wasn't sure if that was factually accurate so wanted to run it by you. Thoughts? And thanks for the quick work! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can say for sure. There are two major works plus a significant study for the second one and a number of drawings just from the sources in the article. There may well have been additional studies and drawings and probably were. There were no other major works as far as I know. Rather than try to pin it down to an exact number, I have changed it to give a range of years which is supported by the sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I ask first. Thanks for the update. Promoted Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]