Talk:Olive Trees (Van Gogh series)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Olive Trees (series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ipigott (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. The article is well written and is accordance with the WP Manual of Style. The level of language is suitable even for those who are not experts in the field. Some of the paragraphs appear rather short but this helps to identify references to individual paintings.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All links on-line sources are live links.

   A considerable number of sources are given. All appear pertinent and reliable.

   All sources appear to support the statements in the article.

   The article is adequately referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article provides adequate background and context for a well-focused description of a specific series of Van Gogh paintings.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

   The illustrations, mainly of paintings, are well presented in regard to size, display and captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Additional points on the article

It was pointed out during the review that the External links section of the article actually contains links to public domain images which could all be included in Commons. Maybe any that are not already there could be uploaded. There could even be a Commons category "Category:Olive trees by Vincent van Gogh" along the same lines as Category:Sunflowers by Vincent van Gogh (Arles series).

I also see that the image File:Seurat bathers grass water.jpg has recenlty been added. The article refers to Seurat's staccato technique but this seems to be an example of longer brushstrokes. Is it appropriate? After all, the image itself is not too clear and certainly does not seem to depict vivid colour. The staccato technique seems to be more prominent in works such as File:Georges Seurat 050.jpg, File:Georges Seurat 026.jpg and File:Georges Seurat - View of Fort Samson.jpg. But perhaps there is a more specific reference which could be cited? - Ipigott (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the part about the External Links, I thought you just questioned it being near references (but under Resources). I pulled all the images from Wikipedia Commons, and there's now an image for each painting, so I'm not sure what the next steps are. Can you help me there?

I meant to show the laying of color in brush strokes referring to the part of the paragraph "Van Gogh used the Impressionist concept of broken color to give light to a work, innovatively drawing in color, giving the painting light and form" which I thought the Seurat detail showed (albeit mostly when one clicks on the image for an expanded view." I think that it might be best to remove "more like the Staccato" portion of the sentence to "The series is unified by a more refined approach, without the thick application of paint to which he was more accustomed." Does that work now?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The point about the External links was made by User:Elekhh. He felt it was unnecessary to provide links to the paintings in the museums if they were on Wikimedia Commons. In general, a large number of external links are not encouraged, especially in cases when the information they provide can be found in the article or elsewhere in the Wikimedia environment. I was simply suggesting that the images of VG's olive trees could be appropriately tagged on Commons so that a template pointing there could be included in the article instead of external links. This is just a suggestion which you may or may not wish to follow up on. - Ipigott (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, somehow I totally missed that point. I removed the external links section as they are already included in references for the paintings. I'm not sure how to tag images on Commons, but hopefully this addresses the concern.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Olive Trees (Van Gogh series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AVoey83L?url=http://minneapolis.institute.art.museum/viewer/detail.php?v=12 to http://minneapolis.institute.art.museum/viewer/detail.php?v=12&id=1218

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on "Olive pickers"

This section refers to the painting currently at NGA (F656) as the third in the series, and that at MoMA (F655) as the second. However, the MoMA page says the reverse. Seeing as there are no dates provided past the month, is there any evidence of one over the other? Mildlydiscouraging (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Error in date

Hi! I just noticed that the date for the couple walking through the olive trees has two different dates listed. It seems that it is most often dated may 1890, but there is some debate that it was made in October of 1889. 2A00:23C8:890F:8201:2C79:F5DA:1FD9:E202 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)