Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/El Greco/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review | El Greco

El Greco

edit

I initiate this last peer-review, just before submitting the article to WP:FAC. The article has already gone through two peer-reviews (here and here), and two more independent reviews by User:Yomangani and User:Eusebeus. Please, check Talk: El Greco. The purpose of this peer-review is to collect any further suggestions or to locate any deficiencies I may have missed despite the repetitive reviews and copy-edits. Thanks!--Yannismarou 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the title be
Doménicos Theotocópoulos, known as "El Greco" (probably a combination of the Castilian and the Venetian language for "The Greek",[a][b] 1541 – April 7, 1614), was a prominent painter, sculptor and architect of the Spanish Renaissance. He usually signed his paintings in Greek letters with his full name. Kaisershatner 18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SG

edit

I switched all of your news sources from cite web to cite news, so that all of the information, including publication date, would be listed, alphabetically by last name of author. Because I didn't know how to use a different date format (I hate the cite templates), that meant I had to switch the last access date format on all of your refs. All of your references are now listed alphabetically, taking last name of author on news sources into account.

The division of References into

  • 9.1 Printed sources (books and articles)
  • 9.2 On-line sources
    • 9.2.1 Biographical
    • 9.2.2 Miscellaneous

creates a problem with the citations list. When the reader needs to find full detail on a source given in the citations list, s/he should be able to do that by going down the References list alphabetically. But, because the references are divided three ways, that means the reader has to peruse three different lists in order to locate full information about a given source. I'm not sure how to solve that problem - I'd probably be happier to see one, combined Reference list, to make it easier on the reader. I'm not sure the reader needs to know if a source is online, in print, or whatever. (I haven't had time to read the article, and considering the holiday season, may not find time.) Sandy (Talk) 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits! I trimmed the two sub-lists in Online Sources. So, now we have two main categories:
  • 9.1 Printed sources (books and articles)
  • 9.2 On-line sources
I do not think that this division is now problematic. After all, in previous articles I divided References in "primary" and "secondary sources", and again there was no problem. I've also seen this distinction of references in printed and online sources in a series of FA articles. After all, the reader can have immediate access to an online source straight from the "Citations" section.--Yannismarou 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, now it works - now one can find the detail. But I found another issue, which I hesitate to fix myself. On all of your cite journals (see WP:CITE), you added an extra set of quotes ( " ) around the journal names - the template automatically provides the correct format, which is italics on journal names. Fixing all of those will take some time :-) Sandy (Talk) 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Yannismarou 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DVD R W

edit

Some brief thoughts and comments:

  • This article looks good, I don't have much to say but I would support it at FAC.
  • The article seems very well researched, but can you cut back on a few citations and notes for the sake of readability?
  • Why so many peer reviews?

Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 10:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Ham

edit

Using my finest-toothed comb...

  • May I suggest putting all the biographical info in a single section entitled Life (with Early years and family etc. as subsections)? That way the division of the article into sections on biography (Life), stylistic analysis (Art), posthumous reputation (Legacy) and historiography (Debates on attribution) would be clearer from the table of contents.
  • "Underscore" is used twice. The second time around it starts to take on the nasty ring of jargon; try to find a synonym.
  • Who's being quoted here: "an illustrious past, a prosperous present and an uncertain future"? It's not clear from the footnote.
  • The formatting is generally very good (particularly the idea of slotting a timeline – always awkward – into the Notes section), but I wonder about the extended Meier-Graefe quote being next to an insert with another quote (the Oddysseas Elytis excerpt). Any chance of moving the latter up or down?
  • When introducing David Davies as an English art historian, there's no need to link to English art. You probably don't need one for human anatomy either.
  • In the Legacy section,
    • Might Posthumous artistic reputation be better named Posthumous critical reputation or some such, as it quotes only critics, whereas the section after that is about artistic responses to his work?
    • Possibly move the reference to Der Blaue Reiter, the only artists quoted in the critical section, to Influence on other artists?
    • The subsection on critics comes before that on artists infuenced by El Greco. It's unusual for the former group to have priority; you might want to consider swapping them around.

Except for the above points, this would tick all my boxes at FAC. Best of luck to you! [talk to the] HAM 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/El_Greco/archive2&oldid=191920667"