Talk:Rochelle Blumenfeld

Rochelle Blumenfeld was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 13, 2018). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Rochelle Blumenfeld received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rochelle Blumenfeld/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 14:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
There are a lot of short paragraphs and the "life as an artist" section sounds a bit proseline-like. Also I don't think that the "(artist)" parenthetical is good style.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
"Most recent"? That's a vague timeframe.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
As far as I can judge the sources, that is.

C. It contains no original research:
Two unsourced paragraphs. I cannot see all the sources but of these I see: I am not sure that #4 supports all the material sourced to it, and #5 does not make any claims regarding Harry Fairman's influence on Rochelle Blumenfield.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
As far as I can tell, anyway.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Although "one-person show " sounds a little odd to me.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
File:Cash Register Hill District Paintings.jpg may be a good example, but I think it needs a bit more explanation on why it is being used; is it characteristic for her style?

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

Status query

Jo-Jo Eumerus, it has been over a month since you reviewed this nomination, and over two months since Iblum has edited on Wikipedia. Since there hasn't been any response or any work done on the article, under the circumstances, you may want to consider closing the nomination; the issues seem to be of the sort that require someone familiar with the topic to work on your concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this seems to be on point. I'll fail this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]