Talk:Still Life: An Allegory of the Vanities of Human Life/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 16:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, happy to review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Katherine A. McIver wrote: "The image presents a "jumble of exquisite possessions ... abandoned hollow things ... receiving temporary luster from a higher source." The "higher source" is represented by a ray of sunlight that cuts directly to the right side of the skull in the painting. I think there's an error in the quotation marks here- if there's quotes inside of a quote, use apostrophes per MOS:QWQ. In 2011 Elena Tuparevska... Comma after 2011 In the 2014 the book titled, 1000 paintings of genius the authors have included this painting as number 354. This statement is a bit confusing. First the comma should be moved to after the title of the painting. Also, what does "included this painting as number 245" mean? Is it a rating (e.g. 345th best painting ever)? Prose is free of typos and understandable.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead could use a bit more regarding the reception, but overall it's still good. No lists or fiction, layout is correct (Lead, History, Description, Reception), and no words to watch.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Ref 4 (Brooke 2010) needs page number The "References" section contains properly formatted citations.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most citations are to reliable books, the most heavily cited one being to the National Gallery website. All good here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All claims are cited, especially the "Description" section- no OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows a 20% score for the National Gallery site, but the tagged phrases consist of the name of the painting itself (rather long name)- no copyvios/plagiarism visible.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses history, description, and reception.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No unnecessary detail; I think the description section is well-written.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Only image is of the painting, and is properly PD tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image of the painting is relevant; no caption needed.
	7. Overall assessment.

Bruxton, very close to getting this to GA, it's already a high quality article- nicely done! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: Thank you very much for the review. I have added to the lead and I have added a page number for the Brooke reference. I have also reworked the quotations and the reception section. Bruxton (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Thanks for the quick fixes- it's good to go. Congrats! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:36, 9 May 2023 (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.