Talk:Nadia Kaabi-Linke/GA1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 01:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No issues seen. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | No issues noted, but see below for presentation concern. |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | None noted. |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | None found through automated tool |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Fine. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Fine. |
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | I don't see any commentary from people who aren't enamored of her work. Does such exist? If so, we should consider DUE weight. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No issues noted. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | "File:Meinstein – Nadia Kaabi-Linke – aerial with person.jpg" and "Walk the Line, 2015 02.jpg" have pending OTRS permissions. I don't have immediate access to OTRS, will be following up on this. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Frankly, they could easily stand to be larger, since this article is about a visual artist. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Accepted on the basis that final OTRS approvals for the fair-use images are pending, and that a good-faith effort has turned up no particular criticism of this artist's work. |
First read-through
- "The artist..." construction, both in the lead and the early life section, seems a bit awkward. If you're looking to avoid saying "She" constantly, there's room to combine a few of the simple sentences.
- "Among prior works, the artist's 2014 exhibition at the London Mosaic Rooms featured a video piece, No, in which church congregants chant the replies to an immigration visa interrogation performed by a disembodied." A disembodied what? Head?
- "The artist considers her work an archaeology of contemporary life." Perfectly fine sentence, but perhaps it should be in the career section, rather than sandwiched amongst how others are reacting to her work?
Overall, the prose looks in rather good condition, without much polishing needed. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Jclemens—I think I've addressed the above. I might have organized the career/works sections differently, as they blend into each other, but I think it should be fine for the format. The Meinstein OTRS ticket agent is waiting on a clarification from the photographer. Shouldn't be an issue for the GA criteria, though, no? OTRS is backed up right now (70+ days), so I'm not expecting the July 12 Walk the Line ticket to get attention right away. I didn't find any negative coverage across all of the articles I read. Writing about art has its own difficult peculiarities based on the specialists' aesthetic language—I've found that any sort of negativity is usually hidden behind some kind of shade (such as unfavorable comparisons or by way of description) rather than overt statements. That said, if she had coverage in major newspapers (the ones that afford art critics), I would expect a few more jabs, yes. And I didn't add more to the captions since the works were either covered in the article text or not covered in detail in secondary sources. czar 02:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, in an article on a visual artist, I REALLY want to make sure we have a clean ticket on the images--without them, the article fails GA criteria on a few levels. I used to have OTRS permissions access, and I have asked my TPS if they can help me out. If I don't get a response in a day or two, I'm going to start pinging specific people to process those messages out of order and get a good, clean, GA pass. Oh, also: did you want to make any of them larger? Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Jclemens, to clarify, I meant that the Wikipedia:Good article criteria doesn't require the OTRS follow-up. (If the issue is copyright violation, you have my word that the multiple rights holders—photographers and artist, across languages, a long, long process—have sent their consent in one form or another and are either awaiting processing or clarification. This said, Natuur12 is familiar with the specifics of the ticket and can answer your questions.) For what it's worth, I'm fine with removing the images from the article if they hold up the process. czar 05:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: Do you have OTRS access sufficient to verify the image permissions for us? Czar, I won't unduly delay the nom, but those cool images are part of what makes it a good article. An article on an artist without her work represented would be somewhat silly. Never try to do the wrong thing just to score points on Wikipedia... never fear, we'll get there. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Jclemens, to clarify, I meant that the Wikipedia:Good article criteria doesn't require the OTRS follow-up. (If the issue is copyright violation, you have my word that the multiple rights holders—photographers and artist, across languages, a long, long process—have sent their consent in one form or another and are either awaiting processing or clarification. This said, Natuur12 is familiar with the specifics of the ticket and can answer your questions.) For what it's worth, I'm fine with removing the images from the article if they hold up the process. czar 05:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, in an article on a visual artist, I REALLY want to make sure we have a clean ticket on the images--without them, the article fails GA criteria on a few levels. I used to have OTRS permissions access, and I have asked my TPS if they can help me out. If I don't get a response in a day or two, I'm going to start pinging specific people to process those messages out of order and get a good, clean, GA pass. Oh, also: did you want to make any of them larger? Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Jclemens—I think I've addressed the above. I might have organized the career/works sections differently, as they blend into each other, but I think it should be fine for the format. The Meinstein OTRS ticket agent is waiting on a clarification from the photographer. Shouldn't be an issue for the GA criteria, though, no? OTRS is backed up right now (70+ days), so I'm not expecting the July 12 Walk the Line ticket to get attention right away. I didn't find any negative coverage across all of the articles I read. Writing about art has its own difficult peculiarities based on the specialists' aesthetic language—I've found that any sort of negativity is usually hidden behind some kind of shade (such as unfavorable comparisons or by way of description) rather than overt statements. That said, if she had coverage in major newspapers (the ones that afford art critics), I would expect a few more jabs, yes. And I didn't add more to the captions since the works were either covered in the article text or not covered in detail in secondary sources. czar 02:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)