Talk:Vincent van Gogh/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Notified: Stumps (talk · contribs), Etacar11 (talk · contribs), Tyrenius (talk · contribs), R.P.D. (talk · contribs), Modernist (talk · contribs), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep This article is being kept as a WP:GA. The effort to improve the article was tremendous and included well over 500 edits. There was talk page interest in bringing this article to WP:FAC. I not only feel that the article should first go to WP:PR, but I am going to undertake listing it there momentarily and notifying most people who partook in the GAR efforts here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As part of GA Sweeps, I am reviewing this article.

• Fix the disambiguation page links
  • Comment - done, there aren't any..Modernist (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Someone else must have fixed them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Fix the deadlinks
  • Done -...Modernist (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Do we need two separate lines of hatnotes. Isn't there a single template that these can be combined into.
  • Done - moved one of them to Biography...Modernist (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Great.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Please adhere to MOS:IMAGES with regard to left-aligned image placements
  • Comment Alignment as is preferred. All of the left-aligned images for format, design considerations are properly and well placed as recommended for coherence and clarity by guidelines...Modernist (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The article has three left-aligned images that are being flaunted in the face of accessibility concerns. Please do something about them or explain to me why they can not be moved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment There are a total of 9 left-aligned images. All are well placed, none interfere with either text or meaning. In my opinion they are all fine, none flaunt in the face of accessibility, sorry...Modernist (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Change 3 of the 9 have been realigned to the right...Modernist (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I presume Tony's somewhat enigmatic and poetic "three left-aligned images that are being flaunted in the face of accessibility concerns" means there are 3 left-aligned images placed directly under level 3 or lower headings? All adjusted. Please confirm, Tone! Ty 00:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
            • All good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• add   to World War II.
  • The whole of World War II? Or what? Ty 00:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, " " has suddenly appeared! You want a "non breaking space". Ty 12:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes the II was breaking on my display, but I could not get the code to show using the nowiki command. Someone has editted it for me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I can't get the code to work. Look at the source for this page and you will understand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I have fixed the code for you (for reference :-)  Done Enki H. (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• There are entire paragraphs of uncited material. Some of these paragraphs are quite short and the content may be better placed in larger paragraphs. Otherwise, in general each paragraph, which should be a distinct topic should have at least one inline citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Tony, once again I get the feeling you have no familarity, at all, with the article you are setting up. So why should you be allowed to judge. Ceoil (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Agree - I am in concurrence with Ceoil (talk · contribs) I think the article is fine. Its a great article - probably should be upgraded to FA as is...Modernist (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I am simply pointing to MOS breaches and basic problems. Yes it is a very fine article. The point of sweeps is to take a look at articles and fine things to improve. Having a bunch of deadlinks or images conflicting with MOS is worth discussing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, but please be more precise in your articulation of these points, so others can target what you wish to draw attention to. A "bunch of deadlinks"? Did that mean two, one of them a site undergoing maintenance...? Ty 02:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
          • At this point, we are dealing with gallery overload and lacking citations for the most part.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Clarification - Please clarify Tony...What exactly are you talking about? Please be specific. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
              • First, I fail to understand why some of the gallery image can not be moved into the text. There are sections where the citation is very weak. E.G., look at the first several paragraphs in Vincent_van_Gogh#Work. Nothing there is common knowledge for a person like me who knows a bit about art, but is not an expert. Please add at least one in-line citation per paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                • I agree. But please put separate points into separate posts, so they can be dealt with separately. Ty 12:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • These are the remaining unresolved bulletpoints from above. They have been listed as separate points since the beginning of this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

←I see that we have gone from dozens of uncited paragraphs to about a half dozen. Great progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please fix the broken ref tag.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Done... Modernist (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Make sure all refs follow punctuation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I just did this myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Make sure that each image included in the main body is mentioned in the text by name.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment That makes sense, probably it will take awhile though...Modernist (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

• The article has a large gallery. It seems like the text could incorporate more of these images with use of the {{multiple image}} template.
  • Comment Gallery as is preferred...Modernist (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not saying eliminate the gallery. I just think more images could be in the text with the proper templates. This would enable the reader to view more images in proximity to relevant text. I would think that this would be an improvement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment I disagree. Although an image was removed and it is more aligned to standard MoS...Modernist (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Disagree with what? That if you put the images adjacent to the text it would be easier for the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Reply I think the gallery serves the artist and his work and the viewer well; given the importance of the work; the nature of painting; and the amount of text to image that we are working with...Modernist (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
            • The point of my template suggestion is that you can put two or three images side-by-side with tremendous captioning options. I understand that there are many images relative to the amount of text, but the main body could actually comfortably accomodate twice as many images. Two side by side at 200 px or three at about 150 for portraits and you could make things a lot easier for the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Bedroom in Arles, (1888), Van Gogh Museum
• 
  The Harvest, Arles, (1888)
• 
  Bridge at Arles, (1888)
• 
  The Night Café, (1888), Yale

As opposed to making a mini gallery in each section that causes page breaks I would suggest the template above in a format like the following which will not break the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bedroom in Arles, (1888), Van Gogh Museum

The Harvest, Arles, (1888)

Bridge at Arles, (1888)

The Night Café, (1888), Yale

or

van Gogh in 1888

Left to right: Bedroom in Arles, (1888), Van Gogh Museum; The Harvest, Arles, (1888); Bridge at Arles, (1888); The Night Café, (1888), Yale

Multiple images cram the paintings together, unless you can specify horizontal spacing between them. The images need room to breathe. Ty 14:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ty this template is the formatting from Fountain of Time, which may be the most recent FA for the visual arts project. We are clearly attempting to squeeze in a lot of images. Mini galleries are not acceptable formatting. Please readjust. If necessary use the {{clear}} command as seen at Jon_Burge#Arrest which will keep the images in the correct sections.

The images in the templates can be stacked as well using the formatting seen on the left below

van Gogh in 1890

Thatched Cottages by a Hill, (1890)

Wheat Field with Crows, (1890)

Top: Thatched Cottages by a Hill, (1890); Bottom: Wheat Field with Crows, (1890)

• Comment Nice job Tony, I gotta think about the space, and the paintings having enough individual weight..I have eliminated 8 images from the larger gallery so far...Modernist (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)