Talk:The Irascibles
 | The Irascibles 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Irascibles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 21:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)
Starting comments: There is a very realistic possibility that, if I find changes that need to be made, I will be unable to follow up until Tuesday. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
1. Well written:
- a. prose/copyright:
Needs work
Acceptable
- Please make sure that each person is linked only once, at their first mention. There are chucks of the article that are just a sea of blue, and that's not entirely necessary.
- I think this is done, but will do a few more sweeps. Raymond Ellis 14:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I had AutoWikiBrowser tell me which ones were linked multiple times, and then manually fixed it. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- For the statement beginning with "On July 3, 1950, a group of 75 artists issued a statement", you list a lot of names, some of which aren't linked. If they're not notable enough to have articles, then should they really be listed? If they do have articles, and they haven't been linked already in the article, they need to be linked.
- Done, I have removed those without links for notoriety's sake and readability. Raymond Ellis 14:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- b. MoS compliance: Acceptable
2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable Obviously I'm going on good faith, as I don't have the printed sources.
- a. provides references: Acceptable
- b. proper citation use: Acceptable
- c. no original research: Acceptable
3. Broad in coverage:
- a. covers main aspects:
Needs work
- I believe it would be useful to give a bit more background information about the status of Abstract Expressionist artists prior to this event. It's not very clear.
- Agreed, I will attend to it. Raymond Ellis 14:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have written a short preamble on the emergence of the New York School. Raymond Ellis 15:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Ellis (talk • contribs)
- b. focused/on topic: Acceptable
4. Neutral: 
Acceptable
5. Stable: Acceptable
6. Image use: Section acceptable
- a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable
- b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:
- a. images that should have alt texts have them:
Needs work Please consider doing this. Acceptable
- I have done so (correctly, I hope). Raymond Ellis 14:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I've changed the alt text (edit). Alt text is for accessibility, so I like the alt text to briefly describe what the image is for people that can't see it. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable
Comments after the initial review: Review on the remaining sections will be done on Tuesday. Apologies for having to break midway through. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I found some time to get the rest of the initial review done. I'll be back on Tuesday. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)