Talk:Tristan and Isolde (Egusquiza)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) 17:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

From the get-go this article reads very much like a GA, and the list below is mostly a series of comments and suggestions, so DanCherek if you disagree with any point you are more than free to argue.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• He worked on various studies and etchings in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that were precursors to the paintings. I'm not entirely sure how well this fits here how it's currently worded, but I invite you to discuss this point. Artists very frequently do studies and etchings before engaging in actually painting the subject for both brainstorming and material cost reasons, so this is not particularly notable for inclusion in the lead except for how long this stage was. Perhaps that could be emphasized more somehow? On the other hand, it might be a characteristic of a painter to spend extraordinary amounts of time researching or working on a work or series of work, and that could be an interesting detail to raise here. I'm not too familiar with Egusquiza (sadly) to really know, however.

  I've rewritten the sentence, starting it with "From the early 1890s" to hopefully emphasize that he started rather early, and mentioned that he exhibited some of them at French salons where they were well received. DanCherek (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• meet the standards of their influential source material. might read better as meet the high standards set by their widely-acclaimed/influential source material.

  Reworded as "met the high standards set by Wagner's acclaimed opera." DanCherek (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Background

• This section would be greatly improved by more description of Egusquiza's career at this point. Where was he educated? Does he belong to a school or movement? Were there any historical events either within art or outside of art that were affecting him at the time? In essence, I feel readers don't entirely know who he was as an artist at this point outside of his affinity for Wagner when reading this section.

  I've added some context to the start of the Background section. DanCherek (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Images

• There might be some useful images to include from this link. However, the images currently present are more than suitable.

  I've added Siegmund and Sieglinde (1892) to the Background section. DanCherek (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think it would be best to use the uncropped version of Egusquiza's image, as it shows him holding a Wagner bust. This would serve to show his appreciation of Wagner more strongly.

  Thanks for the suggestion, I've swapped it out. I plan to get to the rest of the comments soon! DanCherek (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: Thanks again for all of your comments. I've replied to each of them above, let me know what you think! DanCherek (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

All good, moving to pass now. Congratulations Dan! Great read :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)