Talk:Photography in Denmark/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2010 (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. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Shortly afterwards, he returned to Copenhagen with a camera and a couple of his own daguerreotypes for the Crown Prince, who quickly deposited them with one of the leading scientists of the day, Hans Christian Ørsted. This begs the questions - why quickly? and what did Ørsted do with them.?  Done

   I've reworded this with a view to explaining that the Crown Prince believed the invention to be of scientific importance. I hope this now comes across more clearly. Ørsted's own interest in photography helped to foster wider interest. -- Ipigott (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

   Good, I thought that was what was meant, but we need clear prose in an encyclopaedia article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

   There is however another early daguerrotype which has created considerable interest in regard to the history of Danish photography. A little clumsy, perhaps "Another early daguerrotype which has created considerable interest in the history of Danish photography is a portrait of Bertel Thorvaldsen sitting at an easel outside his studio in the garden of the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts at Charlottenborg Palace in the centre of Copenhagen." {[done}}

   I've only slightly shortened that stream of prepositional phrases but have made other changes to that area that I hope improve it as a whole. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

   It has also been noticed that Thorvaldsen is making the "eyes down" sign with what apparently is his left hand... I don't get this. What is the "eyes down sign"? {[done}]

   The "eyes down" sign was the way the gesture was described in several references I found. I have now changed it to the horn sign with a link which should help to clarify. -- Ipigott (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

   Single and double sentence paragraphs in the section 'Daguerreotypes need to be consolidated in paragraphs as per WP:MOS. {{done}]

   And what, pray, is wrong with having one single- and one double-sentence paragraph? -- was what I was about to say (a bit kneejerkily). But on investigation that turned out to be a very good catch of yours Jezhotwells. The paragraphs were fine in themselves but the section was indeed rather a mess as a result of them. I've now fixed this (I hope). -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

   In 1876, she registered as Denmark's first female photographer in Aalborg, specializing in portraits. Was there a legal requirement to register? {[done}}

   I think the rewording provides the answers you need. -- Ipigott (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

   I'm very late to the party, but I think an additional comment is needed here. From 1865 to 1961, registration of each photograph was required for not-quite-copyright protection (photographs weren't protected by the copyright act until 1995 but by a separate photography act). Most photographers didn't bother with registration because it was too much work (they would have to fill out a form for each photograph and for works made for hire also get a written permission from whoever paid for it), and because the protection term was considered short (5 years from 1865 to 1911 and 10 years from 1911 to 1961). The result was that for a very long time a vast majority of photographs were in the public domain and this had a big impact on the photography industry (Elfelt in particular is notorious for having sold photos made by others as his own), so I think this ought to have a bit of space in the article. I don't have any good sources on hand, though. Peter Alberti (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   In chronological order, some of Denmark's more widely recognized contemporary photographers are presented below. Better to just say Some of Denmark's more widely recognized contemporary photographers are: {[done}]

   Done -- Ipigott (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

   The Lead does not fully summarise the article at present, it could do wit slight expansion to cover the 20th century particularly. {[done}]

   I've added another para on contemporary photographers. -- Ipigott (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All on-line sources are live links

   All sources appear reliable

   All sources support the statements in the article as far as I can ascertain.

   The article is adequately referenced.

   I'm mystified by the way that positive comments here (thank you!) seem to contradict your still-undecided rating. Did you perhaps accidentally forget to add your reservations/questions, or are you hoping to find a disinterested reader of Danish to confirm that the sources say what it's claimed that they say? -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

   I just forgot! FoxLingo provides enough hints for me to decide if Danish sources support the statements. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Overall: The article appears at the moment as collection of short paragraphs which are not particularly connected to each other, except chronologically. There is no underlying theme, apart from the Danish connection. I am not getting any real feel for the subject. There is little about the development of the photography industry in Denmark, apart from its beginnings.

   I am having great difficulty with your comment here. The article is intended to trace the development of the art of photography in Denmark. Apart from an Agfa Gevaert factory in Copenhagen (which has now more or less ceased operations), there was nothing in Denmark which could really be considered a photo industry. Technical developments over the past few decades have reflected those in the rest of the world and are hardly worth mentioning in the Danish context. The business successes have mainly been those related to press photography and to the publication of photo essays, etc. So I am really in need of further advice here - including guidance on how to string a strong red thread through the article as a whole. -- Ipigott (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I just wondered if there might be more. I find that it is not infrequent for someone engrossed in their chosen subject to miss parts of the broader picture. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Ok, on hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you for your quick response. I feel that the article sufficiently matches the criteria to be listed. Congratulations! you have a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)