Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/El Greco/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review | El Greco

First of all, I want to make clear that this is not yet the final form of the article. Regard it as an incomplete effort. But I request this peer-review, in order to receive feedback and proceed with the adequate improvements. My obvious goal is to submit this article in FAC. Please, any suggestion, contribution, idea is welcomed. I want to highlight my major concerns:

  • Possible prose defficiencies.
  • Factual accuracy.
  • Possible ommissions in the content.
  • Artistic assessments and comparaisons.
  • Possible layout issues.

Thank you!--Yannismarou 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you quote sources, you often introduce them as "John Doe, professor of art history at Yadda-yadda University...". I presume you are trying to establish the credentials for each person, which is good, but in terms of the writing, it breaks it up. When I'm reading an article and encounter a name I don't know in this context, I usually presume they are a scholar or historian. My suggestion would be to add this information as a note with the references in the reference section.
  • I undrstand your concerns. I don't know if that can be done with the references but I'll definitely try to make these "credentials" shorter, so as not to interrupt the prose!.--Yannismarou 20:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many bolded items throughout the text and captions. The only bolded text should be the first occurance of the artist's name in the lead.
  • In the text the only bold term I saw is the Greek name of El Greco in the lead. I had it bolded because of its importance (the original name of the person in question), but you may be right. You are right with the bolded texts in four quotes. This was the side-effect of the frame I used to have two paintings side by side in order to emphasize on their similarities. I really don't know how to figure that out! But I'll try to find a solution or get some advice who knows better these "Wiki-codes"!--Yannismarou 20:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about putting the citations in two columns? I'm not sure if this is possible, but I think it might look better.
  • I actually have put them in two quotes. The problem is this works only with Mozilla and not with Internet Explorer (I suppose you use the second one!).

I'll be more than happy to do a bit of copy-editing on this if you'd like. I hope this helps! Take care! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll be clear and on this subject: I definitely like you to go through the article and copy-edit it! You offer is more than welcome! Such offers are a relief for any non-native English speaker.--Yannismarou 20:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments WOW! Very impressive...hope to see a star on this soon. :) A native English speaker's comments:

  • There's a lot of information for the reader to digest within the first parentheses...I'd suggest moving the origin of "El Greco" out and into a regular sentence, but that's just personal preference more than anything.
  • What's the stylistic convention for names of paintings? Is it italics? If so, some of the captions need it.
  • El Greco is the best known Greek-born painter in the world. Hmmm...may violate WP:NPOV.
  • His highly individual dramatic and expressionistic style I'm not sure what "highly individual" means there...do you mean "unique"?
  • "phantasmagorical" could use a wikilink :)
  • "icon painter" could too
  • Are there other views besides Ms. Sethre's on what caused his conversion? Not that I doubt her claims, but some readers might be scratching their heads as to why an "English teacher" is quoted there. Is she a renowned El Greco scholar? Of course, Ganymead's suggestion about credentials, which I agree with, would negate this quibble.
  • His works painted in Italy are influenced... and Clovio reports visiting El Greco The shift in tense in those sentences was a bit jarring to me.
  • El Greco's inventions in the Allegory of the Holy League Might want to devote a short clause to those inventions...
  • It is notable that by 1604, the number of rooms in his house had risen to twenty-four, indicating a successful career How about "By 1604, the number of rooms in his house had risen to twenty-four, suggesting a successful career"?
  • Doménicos Theotocópoulos, generally known as El Greco, died on April 7, 1614. Why not, just "El Greco died on April 7, 1614." or "Doménicos Theotocópoulos died on April 7, 1614.", since his name was explained earlier?
  • Also what did he die of? Do we know/have theories?
  • Intro to Art section is a bit unnecessary IMO.
  • Future generations had little appreciation for El Greco's work until?
  • The artist was deemed incomprehensible and had no important followers Again, when was this era?
  • He was disdained by the generations How about "immediate generations"?
  • "eccentric", "odd" and so forth No need for "and so forth".
  • As this is the English version of Wikipedia, we probably don't want to link to the Spanish article on Manuel Bartolomé Cossío.
  • To the Blaue Reiter group in Munich in 1912, El Greco typified that mystical inner construction that it was the task of their generation to rediscover. Citation probably needed.
  • El Greco's works are all very intense. Probably a bit too far-reaching to go without a cite. Also, may lead to non-NPOV issues, depending on how you define "intense".
  • El Greco often produces an open pipe between Earth and Heaven in his paintings... and the rest of the paragraph seems to constitute original research since there are no sources...
  • I know! It is a vestige of the previous version of the article I have not yet fixed. But I'll soon work on that. I kept it just in case I could find anything useful in terms of expression, before I cite and rephrase it.--Yannismarou 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of his finest late works... non-NPOV violation there.
  • Does the Art section perhaps deserve its own article (Art of El Greco)? It is a bit long...

Thanks for your detailed remarks. I've tried to work on your suggestions and, with the exception of two that I have not commented and one I asked for a further explanation, I tried to address all these issues.--Yannismarou 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes! I like! :) FYI, IMO = "in my opinion". And FYI = "for your information" :) Gzkn 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Gzkn that the introduction to the Art section is redundant; it says nothing that's not already been said in the second paragraph of the lead. Also, I would suggest reorganising that whole section with Technique and style coming first – I don't see the logic in beginning with a discussion on artists who have been inspired by El Greco after his death before his style has even been touched on. The sub-section Re-evaluation of his art belongs near the end; could it not be merged with Artistic reputation? There is a bit of thematic overlap there. Lastly, I don't think Works is the best title for a section which focuses not on the works themselves, but on academic debate about El Greco's catalogue raisonné. Perhaps something like Debates on attribution? [talk to the] HAM 22:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/El_Greco/archive1&oldid=287947275"