Talk:Art in early modern Scotland

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Art in early modern Scotland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 17:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Devotional art

• Can you be more specific with the "they moved into another branch of the Gaelic learned orders", what branch was this?

That should have read "other branches". Unfortunately I cannot find an article to link to on these, which would be helpful here.--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "The nature of the Scottish Reformation may have had wider effects" can you attribute this so it doesn't sound like OR, According to xxx, the nature of the..

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Portraits

• Can you cite "perhaps as a form of political expression".

Its Tittler at the end of the next sentence.--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Repetition of perhaps in "In 1502 James IV paid for delivery of portraits of the Tudor household, perhaps"

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "The products of these connections included a fine portrait of William Elphinstone." Who painted this?

We don't know, the attribution is based on style.--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "The tradition of royal portrait painting in Scotland was probably disrupted by the minorities and regencies it underwent for much of the sixteenth century. In his majority James V was probably more concerned " -repetition of probably.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Artists form the Low Countries remained important. " -typo?

Yep.  Done--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "There was an attempt to produce a series of portraits of Scottish kings in panel portraits, probably for the royal entry of the fifteen-year old James VI in 1579, which are Medieval in form. In James VI's personal reign," -delink James VI in the second instance.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "leading Scottish portrait painter" repeated twice and inconsistency in portrait painter and portrait-painter.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Domestic decoration

• Prestongrange I think links to the settlement, do you mean Prestongrange House?

Yes, good catch.--SabreBD (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "These are probably the oldest surviving example of Scottish produced embroidery." Perhaps cite this directly, I gather the bottom source covers it though.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Repetition of probably, used 4 times in one paragraph!

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Pro. of art

• "The duties included "drawing pictures of our [the Monarch's] person or of our successors or others of our royal family for the decorment of our houses and palaces"." seems a strange quotation and unsourced. I'd reword it in your own words.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Overall this is an excellent piece, but it seems to me that the History of art in early modern Scotland might be more appropriate as a title unless you perhaps explore more of the techniques used by artists, what colours and materials did they typically use during this period, what was typically depicted in landscapes etc. For example with "It is one of the earliest representations of a Scottish subject to survive and was probably painted by a Scots artist using Flemish techniques." I'd want to know what those distinct Flemish techniques were in a brief analysis of the actual artwork.

You can only go by what sources you have though and I'm happy that this satisfies GA, minor points aside.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid the sources are just not available. It might be possible to say something about techniques used by Flemish artists, but anything that applied them to Scottish art would probably stray into OR.--SabreBD (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Great job, a pleasure to read.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your helpful edits and suggestions. Much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)