| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because... This article is really close to fulfilling the FA criteria. I would've put it up for FAC right away but knowing the past four attempts from two years ago I wanted to find all of the ways I could possibly improve the article beforehand. I will keep this open for at most three weeks before closing.
Thanks, Realmaxxver (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Comments from Bon courage
edit- Concerning the Lancet case report, we say "Utermohlen's self-portraits first gained attention after they were described in The Lancet's 2001 case report." Yet the first source cited does not verify this, and the second states a "stir" was caused by an exhibition, This is mirrored in the lede.
- Reliable sources did report on the story of the Self-portraits (The Philadelphia Inquirer, BBC, The Daily Telegraph) around the time of the publication of the case report, so the case report definitely did attract some attention to the Utermohlen story. It is however true that the sources cited did not verify the claim. I have removed it from the lead. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- PMID:28026197 (a rather far-fetched bit of medical research) is cited for the view of "some writers". Who are they? Is this due? The wording as-is is rather WP:WEASELish.
- The "Some writers" I was referencing are the authors of the article I was citing, my dumbass didn't know how to attribute the words of an article with multiple authors attached to it back when I wrote the article nearly two years ago. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Similarly "Commenters liken them ..." Bon courage (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- "Commenters liken..." The Legacy section is getting pretty long at this point, so I just decided to remove this sentence. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)