Wikipedia:Peer review/White Mountain art/archive1

White Mountain Art[edit]

This is my first article. BrokenSegue has been very, very helpful.

I am interested in any and all comments — style, headings, images, content and length, encycolpedic style, references, links, etc. etc.

JJ 03:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good for your first article! I think this is certainly featured article material. I would suggest expanding the lead and turning the artists list into prose and merging it into another section. — Wackymacs 11:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, here we go. Your introduction should be expanded and should summarize the whole article (might want to split it up into 2 paragraphs). The title of the article or some rephrasing of it should be bolded in the first paragraph (as is the Wikipedia house style). It's clear that you enjoy this topic, but saying thing like "monumental" or "picturesque" when they are not quoted to a person seems non-encyclopedic. You say that Image:Frost Photo Comparison.jpg is in the public domain. I understand that the painting is, but who took the photo? While I am talking about pictures, the captions should [in general] be longer and complete sentences (see Wikipedia:Captions). I don't think it's appropriate for the references section to refer to user your space templates. You should verify that they are correct and "subst" them in. What if someone wants to change it only for this article? It makes it harder than it needs to be. I made a few simple formatting changes. More parenthetical references wouldn't hurt. I'm still not sure that Art in the White Mountains (anyways wouldn't the correct current title be White Mountains art (note the "s" and the lower case art)). I know I suggested the current title, but I may have been mistaken. Broken S 22:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]