Talk:The Naked Ladies/GA1

GA Review

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

I will shortly comment as to whether this article requires further review. If you have any questions, feel free to message me at my talk page. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

If you'd like me to elaborate on any of these choices further, please feel free to ask. I'm more than happy to answer questions. Good luck with the article, and my sincerest wishes that it passes its next GAN. –blurpeace ^(talk) 02:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well a few examples as to why you think it it poorly written, fails npov and MOS would be helpful. I'm conscious that one or two of the photos didn't yet have alt text but other feedback would be more useful. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Review

The entire article could use some copy editing and expansion. For example, in §3.1, the line, "... celebrated fraudster Whitaker Wright ..." is biased.

Find a relevant section for each image, and if you can't, remove some (read this and this). The captions, and alt texts need to be revised as well.

Consider reading a current good article to get an idea of what yours is supposed to look like. When you've resolved these issues, you may reapply at WP:GAN (use my list as a guide). Good luck, –blurpeace ^(talk) 09:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks Blurpeace, I look forward to your review. I'm considering retaking some of the photos as I've been advised that mid day is not the best light for photography - suggestions on composition and closeups would be welcome. I do have a close up of the one lady still holding a pearl that I could add, and also a shot with people around to give it scale.

I'm also conscious that we really need some links to British society papers of the time of Tata's garden parties, but I won't be able to do that for a few weeks. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I think the current wording of the sentence about Mr Wright is better than my original version. I don't see a breach of NPOV in it, if someone has been convicted of fraud surely it is fair comment to describe them as a fraudster. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Celebrated was the word I was referring to. –blurpeace ^(talk) 00:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In that context celebrated is a euphemism for notorious, and I would have thought more appropriate for the pedia. As he was not just a fraudster but at the time a very famous one it is appropriate to put something there to make it clear that he was very famous in his day, but in my view celebrated is more encyclopaedic in that context than notorious or famous. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

After some further research, the word does indeed hold a neutral point of view. I should avoid using Wiktionary for nailing down my definitions. –blurpeace ^(talk) 20:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, what else did you consider breached NPOV? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing else. The article now passes that criterion. –blurpeace ^(talk) 05:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)