Talk:Happy Brothers

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Happy Brothers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. I have every intention of becoming a little better acquainted with fine art, and perhaps reviewing this article will help! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Was the original name in English? What's the name in the artist's native language? (I say this because it surely belongs in the lead, and probably the opening line. Perhaps the infobox, too.)

The original title was in Serbian. I've added this to the intro.

• "It shows four intoxicated youths walking through their village whilst the mother of one shouts her disapproval from the distance." Why the mother of one? Judging from the title, I'd have said that it's the mother of all of them. Also, why their village?

Such is the description in the primary source. Filipovitch-Robinson, the historian whose work this article relies on most, doesn't provide much of a description so I had to dig a bit deeper than I normally would to produce a satisfactory paragraph. However, the aforementioned historian does contradict the primary source by saying that the woman is the mother of all four. Perhaps this can be explicated in a note?

• Would it be worth including Clients in Front of a Lawyer's Door? (Do we have it?)

I vaguely recall seeing it in an art history textbook, unfortunately a Google search doesn't turn up any results.

• The description given in the description section seems to include an awful lot of details which surely could not be gleaned from the picture alone. Is this the speculation of a critic? What a particular viewer claims to see? The artist's own interpretation?

The artist's own description of what the painting portrays.

• "A young girl peaks out the bottom pane of the left window of the house to the far right, wondering if her boyfriend is part of the group." I'll take your word for it, but I can't see her?

I hear you. I'm just following the primary source.

• "Filipovitch-Robinson asserts that Predić" I personally find "asserts" a little judgemental. "Argues"? "Claims"?

Done

• "precision and linearism" Are these technical terms? Do we have articles to link to?

Precision is just precision. I've linked linear perspective.

• Is it worth including Peasants of Flagey? Also, if it's notable, do link, even if we don't have an article- there's nothing wrong with redlinks!

Linked.

• "Filipovitch-Robinson asserts" Again! "explains", "argues", "claims"- even "has written".

No problem

• "The art historian Dejan Medaković once suggested that Predić was imitating the style of satirists William Hogarth and Honoré Daumier." Does this (and the immediately following lines) not belong in the analysis section?

Moved

• This isn't necessary for GAC, but... A few of your references are "John Smith", but most are "Smith, John"- consistency would be good! Also, I wouldn't bother listing the locations/publishers of journals.

Done

• Do we not have a category for Uroš Predić's works?

Apparently not.

A sift through some Google Scholar and Google Book results suggest that you've got the main sources (and reveals no copyright problems); it seems like this is not his most famous painting, despite being significant. An enjoyable read; please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope I addressed all your concerns. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I made a few more small changes, and I am now happy to promote. I do think that a note specifying that the depicted woman has been described as the mother of all four depicted men, rather than just of one, would be a valuable addition, but there's no need to hold up promotion for that. This is a very nicely put-together article, and I enjoyed reading through it; great work! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)