Talk:Ukiyo-e/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 23:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: Overall it's a very well-written article. I reviewed it and made some edits for punctuation, spelling and minor copy edits. No issues found in the source to content checks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: --CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: --CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: Good sources, web sources checked out (most to John Fiorillo's site, who has many published articles about Japanese art)

C. No original research: no evidence of original research, well cited content--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Great coverage of the topic, including background historical information; key artists and subjects; print production processes; and interest by the west and influence on western art.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused: the article is quite comprehensive, but topics are covered concisely. The article has 41,860 characters of readable prose, which is within WP:LENGTH.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: --CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: --CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: I fixed a number of licensing tags, and they're good now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: It would have been nice to have had the collection information, but because of the multiple groupings of images, the brevity is understandable.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments -

After running Dablinks, I added one disambiguation tag for burnishing - the options seem to be burnishing for metal and pottery. Neither quite fit, but marked with the tag for resolution.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I left it at the dab because the metal and pottery pages obviously weren't appropriate. I couldn't tell whether I should redlink to a Burnishing (paper) page, or if it would be best if someone created a Burnishing article that had the metal, pottery, & whatever pages as subarticles, or combined into one article (I'm no expert on the subject). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, it gets a bit complex in that there seems to be a different definition of burnishing for paper vs. ukiyo-e (couple of good sources here. Does "burnishing" come up a lot in ukiyo-e articles? If not, maybe it could be unlinked and have a note with the definition. Or, as you say create a Burnishing (paper) or Burnishing (ukiyo-e) article. Whatever you think is best works for me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found a source that clarifies it. I've unlinked it and included a short explanation in the body of the text. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Great, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to check content to source. So far, the Lane cited text is well-written, without copyvio issues. Will spot-check some others tomorrow, but so far looks good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are weird CS1 errors for web citation dates: "Check date values in: |date= (help)" This occurs for the citations with date ranges, but the en dash is used appropriately, so I'm not sure what the issue is. If anyone else knows how to correct this, that would be helpful. One option might be to use the latest year.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- These errors aren't showing up for me. Can you check again? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, that's good. I have something set in preferences somewhere so that I see the errors. I don't know where, I investigated a CS1 error at one point and on that page I clicked a box so that I could see the errors directly, versus the indirect route. If the error message isn't seen for most people it's not likely a big issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know what it might be? They appear to be deprecating the "|year=", "|month=", and "|day=" parameters and combining them into the "|date=" parameter since they've moved to using Lua in the templates. Maybe because I'm using "|year=" instead of "|date=" it's spitting out those errors for you. If that's the case, I'd just leave it alone until the bot gets to it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep, I've corrected a lot of CS1 errors by moving individual month + year to date. But, I've not seen CS1 errors for lone year values. This time I think the issue is the range of years, but you've got an en dash between the years, as directed. I think we should let it go.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It might be an error with the new ~~coffee~~ code, then, and might be worth reporting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I went to the online chat and they don't see anything wrong, so I posted a message here. We'll see what they have to say.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Changes made to the article per Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 1#Ukiyo-e--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that added content from the Boston Museum was removed, which is fine since the original added statements weren't backed up by the source. There's one open clarification tag for "high establishment", numbered items 1 ~~and 3~~ in this list are complete, and I just have to do some more spot-checking of sources to content (#2).--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw a new comment on the CS1 talk page after I created this summary, so I struck out item #3 as done for the time being/until there's consensus.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comment was just asking for clarification. I wasn't disputing anything. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, good. So far, the source-to-content checks are going very well. If you could take a look at the clarification tag for "high establishment" that would be great, and if you see anything in my edits that is concerning to you that would be good to know, too. I don't plan on making any more copy edits.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Changed the phrase to "Japanese art establishment". I'd probably meant to write "high art establishment". Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I've passed the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]