Talk:Frances Brundage/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: fixed one dab.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: no dead links found. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Brundage received her art education from her father, and, at the age of seventeen, was forced to earn a living from her art after Lockwood abandoned his family. Non sequitur, no connection between the two clauses, better as two separate sentences.

   Brundage died on March 28, 1937, aged 82 years. Stand alone sentences are discourage in the WP:MOS.

   Suggest that the lists of publications should be condensed to the more notable. Currently the list content outweighs that of the prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Only one source is used and I am worried about this. What makes it a reliable source?

   I suggest more sources be found. If the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article then there should be better sourcing.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article contains little detail of how her work is regarded apart from an opinion on a personal website. In fact the whole is basically just a rewording of that website.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Hard to say without other sources

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article desperately needs expansion from other sources than a personal webiste. The lengthy list of publications hould be trimmed. I feel it is not yet of sufficient quality for GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wow! Where did you find this article? I listed it first with GA Literature then moved it to GA Arts and Architecture and thought I pulled it completely from the GA queue about a month ago because I realized it was not up to par and planned to rework it. I never expected it to be reviewed, but good job! I'll get back to this and work with the suggestions for improvement. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Took care of the prose issues and deleted list of publications until the most notable can be determined through sources. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)