Talk:Doni Tondo/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Some of the sentences seem short and abrubt, I imagine this is because you intended for the curious reader to be able to learn more by tracking your sources. However, the prose is clear and the grammar and spelling are correct.

have a clear source, to make it easier for those performing research.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   This article is referenced assiduously. Great job. Some do not like to see so many in-line citations, but I like

them because they make it easier to verify sources and learn more about the subject. Also, I was able to find two of the sources on Google Books, so I took the liberty of adding the URL to your references so interested readers can continue their learning.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are in the public domain.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Other notes: Great work on this article, it is truly a labor of love. I would think about expanding the lead slightly to include more information on what the specific interpretations of the painting are. However, the article is quite good and I am going to pass it. Congrats. Lazulilasher (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)