Talk:Pastoral Concert
Add topic | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
What a mess!
[edit]The old history of this article, started in 2011, can be seen here - at Pastoral Concert, now redirected here. Some sort of history merge will presumably need to be done. The new name will I think have to be changed, with a proper RM discussion. I've added the old categories, which had all been removed. I haven't even looked at the text yet. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Student Peer Review (CSUS Fall 2020)
[edit]Hello! I'm adding the notes I made as I went through the article chronologically and will add a paragraph at the end that sums up my thoughts. - add more general information to the intro - small detail, but I'd recommend taking out "likely" from the first sentence. - Is there no picture for this article? - I feel that the first sentence in the second paragraph under "History" should have a citation. - I really like the quote you used from Midsummer Night's Dream in Mythology. It really breaks up the article and connects it to outer material. - The first sentence under Allegory seems like it should use a citation - I think that Isabella d'Este, "the possible patron of this painting" should be mentioned in the History section - References look good
Overall, the information and references you have to back it up looks solid. I didn't notice any bias and you seemed to cover everything properly. I noticed that there was an area that you left a sentence unfinished but I am assuming that it's because you're working on that section. Something to work on is just polishing sentence structure- but honestly your article is looking really good!
Hi Anna!
I too will make notes chronologically with a summary at the end.
- Your history section looks fine without any adjustment at the moment.
- I notice that there are a lack of photographs for the topic. Maybe there are little to no photos that are out there of the work, so that is understandable.
- I think the Patronage sections could use more detail for the section, if possible.
- The Description section seems valid on the work you chose. I have nothing to add.
-The Mythology section is well created and the sources you have are backed well.
- Allegory section is well formulated with sources.
- Provenance and Cultural Influence sections are well made.
- Notes section could use some detail if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C300:3EE0:D58B:10BB:762:2C56 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)