Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Nightmare/1
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 • • GAN review not found
- Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
This article has many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is an empty "Legacy" section with an orange banner in it since July 2024. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Z1720, I'll be looking after this; plan is to resolve the immediate issues that have crept in since the original GA nom (which I followed at the time), bring the referencing format current to 2024 fashions ;) — and will ping you for a further look once those relatively easy parts are done. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Ceoil, do you intend to work on this article further? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi AirshipJungleman29, yes...but is overall in pretty good condition. Will ping when finished. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Seems restored to GA to me now. Pinging Z1720, AirshipJungleman29. Ceoil (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 and Ceoil: The "Exhibition" section has some blockquote coding that needs to be fixed, and I think the poem quoted should be removed as the prose can summarise the poem instead. I added a cn tag about the Detroit Institute of Arts. The lead should have information about the artwork's influence, including info about the literature and visual arts it inspired. Overall, this is very close to a keep. Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720 agree, the lead could be expanded via info from the body. Will ping when done. Have trimmed the poem, and your cn tag has been addressed by another editor. Thanks both. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 and Ceoil: The "Exhibition" section has some blockquote coding that needs to be fixed, and I think the poem quoted should be removed as the prose can summarise the poem instead. I added a cn tag about the Detroit Institute of Arts. The lead should have information about the artwork's influence, including info about the literature and visual arts it inspired. Overall, this is very close to a keep. Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Seems restored to GA to me now. Pinging Z1720, AirshipJungleman29. Ceoil (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi AirshipJungleman29, yes...but is overall in pretty good condition. Will ping when finished. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Ceoil, do you intend to work on this article further? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Z1720, I'll be looking after this; plan is to resolve the immediate issues that have crept in since the original GA nom (which I followed at the time), bring the referencing format current to 2024 fashions ;) — and will ping you for a further look once those relatively easy parts are done. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720, can I get another two weeks on this....have other commitments here, but is a painting and article am very fond of. Ceoil (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: No concerns, I'm not in a rush. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: There seemed to be nothing left to do here after the work mentioned above but to write a few lines in the lead, so I've done that. The article is good to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- My only remaining concern is that Note A needs a citation, and the source used should also verify the information in the text of the article that Note A is citing. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've cited the text that the note follows. I can't see any source for the note itself, so I've hidden it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Concerns are resolved, no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Dont think the additions to the lead very very good, but whatever. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: Others have criticised me for being too strict in my reviews: I am happy to defer to subject-matter experts if they feel there are problems with any parts of the article, and happy to take a closer look if requested. Z1720 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720: I don't at all think you are too strict and you might have noticed I muchly welcome your reviews, but perhalps you open too many reviews, but at the same time am very happy FAR is still going. Anyways, no harm here I hope, am catching up with a better lead. Another hour and will be sorted. Ceoil (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: Others have criticised me for being too strict in my reviews: I am happy to defer to subject-matter experts if they feel there are problems with any parts of the article, and happy to take a closer look if requested. Z1720 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- My only remaining concern is that Note A needs a citation, and the source used should also verify the information in the text of the article that Note A is citing. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: There seemed to be nothing left to do here after the work mentioned above but to write a few lines in the lead, so I've done that. The article is good to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: No concerns, I'm not in a rush. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720, have rewritten the lead. The original nominator was a good friend back in the day but the article had degraded; hope the new version stands up. Open to feedback. Ceoil (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
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.