Talk:The Temple (painting)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 05:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review the article. AM

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

• Introduce Paul Delvaux (‘the Belgian artist Paul Delvaux’); Giorgio de Chirico.
  • Done
• Severed – is synonymous with "decapitated", the person's head was "cut off". Do the sources specify this, or that it was broken off from the statue? Ditto severed in the Subject section.
  • Changed to "broken off", in line with Jockey 2009 ("...the break at the neck and the accidents it has suffered show that it originally belonged to a statue...")
• Tam – should have a surname (here and in the Background section), as the pair were not at this point married.
  • Added full name and more details.
• enchantment – has different meanings, which is implied here?
  • Not specified in the source, so I turned it into a quotation.

1 Background

• at his art dealer Claude Spaak's house in Choisel outside Paris – consider amending to something like ‘with his art dealer Claude Spaak, who lived in Choisel, a small settlement southwest of Paris’, to improve the prose.
  • I rewrote most of the section. They didn't live with Spaak, he just owned the house, in addition to his home in Paris.

2 Subject and composition

• Consider linking Mediterranean region (Mediterranean Basin).
  • Done

3 Analysis and reception

• Link art historian; motif (Motif (visual arts)); archaeologist.
  • Done
• The use of says in this section seems strange, as text (i.e. not speech) follows in each case. Consider rephrasing where it occurs, e.g. Dumas says the combination of classical fragments and modern objects in The Temple is reminiscent - ‘Dumas has described the combination of classical fragments and modern objects in The Temple as being reminiscent’; He says the way Pablo Picasso - ‘He noted the way Pablo Picasso’; Delvaux said they were part - ‘Delvaux described them as being part’; Philippe Jockey says - ‘ Philippe Jockey has observed that’; and says the painting - ‘and has written that the painting’; She says it uses – ‘According to Devillers it uses’.
  • Changed, hopefully I didn't miss anything.
• Le Rêve Transformé (1913) and The Song of Love (1914) by Chirico – ‘Chirico’s Le Rêve Transformé (1913) and The Song of Love (1914)’? (minor point, slightly clearer imo).
  • Done
• Paquet – as this person has died, highlights and compares should read ‘highlighted’ and ‘compared’ respectively.
  • Done
• I would avoid linking triumphal arch in the quote (see MOS:LINKQUOTE).
  • Removed the link
• Why is it significant that the objects are intact?
  • Tried to make it more clear.

4 Provenance

• Link retrospectives (amended to 'retrospective exhibitions', Retrospective#Arts_and_popular_culture).
  • Done
• This source mentions the Jean–Louis Merckx Collection, so I think Jean–Louis Merckx can be amended to 'the art collector Jean–Louis Merckx'.
  • Done
• and catalogued – as art establishments of any kind do this, there’s no need to include the phrase here.
  • Done
• belonged – ‘had been sold to’ sounds better imo.
  • Done

5 References

No issues with the spot checks I did. No evidence of plagiarism found.

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 11 August to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, Amitchell125. I have addressed everything above. Please let me know if more needs to be done. Ffranc (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Passing

Everything looks good, passing the article now. Many thanks for your work on it. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.