Wikipedia:Peer review/Vincent van Gogh/archive1

Vincent van Gogh edit

I saw that this is one of the vital articles that hasn't made it to featured status yet. I did not contribute to this page up to this point. After reading it, though, I saw it was well referenced and comprehensive. I would like to see this brought up to FA status, and would be happy to help! Dafoeberezin3494 04:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty comprehensive. There are several things that need work;

The lead is far too long, it should be a summary of the article, further suggestions and instructions at WP:LEAD
Legacy doesn't need subheadings, it breaks up the flow of the text for no appreciable gain
The list of influences whould be better discussed in the text
The trivia and naming sections seem unnecessary.
Myths probably don't need their own section either and could be worked into the narrative
Even if you get rid of some of the sections I suggested you get rid of, the table of contents is very long, other parts of the article should be merged together where logical to shorten it
There are lots of places in the article where single sentences float all on their lonesome, a sentence is not a paragraph and these should be collected together into longer sections.

--Peta 11:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I started by merging the trivia section. More work to come soon. Dafoeberezin3494 15:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some remarks that may be useful:

Reference is mainly to digestive material: Callow, Wilkie, Nemeczek, Erickson. I would prefer to see other names: Jan Hulsker, Ronald Pickvance, Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov, for example.
Wilkie should be toned down. This is no reliable reference work, but a journalist's collection of gossip collected decades after Van Gogh's dead. It would best fit to a section Gossip, sub-Legacy.
Research, on the other hand, would be a highly desirable section, for there were recently a couple of discoveries, which put new light on various aspects of Van Gogh's work.
Forgeries, too, should have their chapter: One cannot understand certain recent discussion, without the previous ones.

--R.P.D. 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biography is just too fragmented. Maybe a scheme of dividing the years of his life other than where he stayed should be adopted (may be artistic "periods"?). Also myths and medical records don't really belong in bio and should be made separate. I guess I don't need to mention that there shouldn't be two legacy sections--ppm 21:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]