Talk:Theft of The Weeping Woman from the National Gallery of Victoria/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I remember this....right then, will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• The opening sentences is repetitive and cumbersome. How about this - take a look and see what you think.

• In the The painting section, you need to combine the stubby paragraphs. never mind, my screen at home is very wide. Doesn't look so bad Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Some more info would be good, as the painting does not have an exclusive article. Why are the colours chosen etc.

• "definitive" (article) doesn't really equal "elaborate" (source) in describing the final painting. "detailed" is closer.

• Any other information surrounding the purchase would be key to add here - was it controversial? Did they haggle? What was the gallery's motive? did it go in its own gallery like blue poles did?

• The previous highest price paid for a painting by a major gallery in Australia was Jackson Pollack's Blue Poles, - err, the price was $1.3 million, the painting was Blue Poles - this sentence needs subjects aligned.

• The first two sentences in the theft section begin, "The thieves.." - mix it up a little. More detail would be good - was time of theft known/suspected etc.

• I think there are too many small sections below the Demands and insults section. I'd consolidate Official responses and Contemporary reactions to the theft into a Response section, and Recovery and Closure of crime investigation into a Recovery and closure

• Avoid choppy paras of <2 sentences...

Query

What is the status of this review? It has been a month since the above was posted by Cas Liber, and there haven't been any edits to the article to address these issues by nominator Shirt58. Progress of some sort would seem to be in order after this hiatus. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Working on it

My first time at WP:GAR. Is there a deadline for GA reviews? If there is, have I missed it?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Shirt58, generally a response of some sort is expected here on the review page within seven days. Some reviewers are more lenient. The fact that you have replied here now, prior to the review being closed, will keep the review going. It's important to make regular progress once the review has begun. Be sure to report your progress here, and note when you've addressed a particular issue raised by the reviewer (or that you've addressed them all). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the reply, and for your patience and guidance. I think it would be a good idea if I checked out some other GAR reviews to see what is expected. Maybe the article won't pass review this time around, and that's fine with me, and I'll learn from it. In the meantime, I'll continue to do my best to follow the improvement suggestions. Hopefully this will not be too much of a drain on reviewers' time. Thanks again! Pete "also, please rule me out as a suspect: I was just a kid living in Tasmania in August 1986" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Cas Liber, where do things stand now? Shirt58 made article edits on May 7 and 9; have these addressed the issues you raised? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ummmm @Shirt58:...I have some specific queries above....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll have a little more time to address things later this week. Blast these off-wiki things I have to attend to! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Been another month now, both parties are definitely active, so not sure where we are now. Wizardman 13:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shirt58:? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Bloody hell, what more really needs to be done here? As far as I can see, "this article is already well written, contains factually accurate and verifiable information, is broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses". That said: if it fails a good article nomination, that's fine by me. Very busy at work, and as I mentioned before I have very little hobby time to do anything else than mop-work on Wikipedia. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like it should fail, then, Cas Liber. If the queries were germane and needed addressing when made and again a month ago, they still are. (This is now the second oldest open review at over three months and counting. One way or another, it's time and past for it to be closed.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

2nd opinion requested

Hmm, I am not sure whether the outstanding points are too trivial (as I am often pushing articles to FAC here), so have asked for a fresh set of eyes. I have no problem with a second editor deciding either way. The key really is is it comprehensive enough... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

My opinion, FWIW:

• I don't think that more information about the creation/composition of the painting is necessary for this to be a GA (though I suspect that if the article were to go to FAC that would probably be queried).
• I agree that the source given does not support "definitive", and I would prefer if that were either sourced or changed. Unsourced, that's the kind of editorial judgement that wikipedia articles should avoid. (Criteria 2c and 4 are the relevant ones here).
• Other information surrounding the acquisition of the painting would definitely be nice to have. (Though note that GACR 3a is much less stringent than WIAFA 1b. WP:GANOT specifically says that "it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail")
• Agree that short subsections/paragraphs read badly and should preferably be condensed. "Well written" is a criterion for GA status.

Other points, which your review didn't cover:

• Again re. comprehensiveness: is there any more to say about the fact that the painting wasn't insured? Why wasn't a Picasso insured? What was the response from the media/public when they found out that the painting hadn't been insured?
• "A search was made for Spencer Street station's locker 227, where the painting was found, which supposedly was taken with others to a regional rail facility, but it had been replaced and could not be located." This needs contextualisation. When was this search made? When was it taken to a "regional rail facility"? What does "regional rail facility" even mean in this context?
• Some of the works described in the legacy section appear to have nothing to do with the theft at all, simply to refer to the painting.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto I did actually find why it wasn't insured...so would you pass or fail it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Casliber at this point, I would fail it. These problems have been outstanding since March, and I see no indication that they are being worked on. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - in summary, questions remain over the use of an adjective in one reference, whether the article is appropriately focussed, the choppiness of the prose by too-small sections and lack of discussion on these issues. Not passing is the default at this point. I would be happy to re-review promptly if more information comes to hand. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)