Talk:Vladimirka (painting)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: MX (talk · contribs) 01:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Hello. I'll review this one. The review will include two parts: first, I'll review prose and provide copyediting recommendations, if needed; for the second part, I'll review the sources and appropriate attribution. MX (✉ • ✎) 01:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

they emerged onto the Vladimir Highway, an unpaved road that runs east from Moscow and is frequently used to ferry prisoners to Siberia for exile. — My idea is that this should be in past tense, meaning "...was frequently used to ferry prisoners...". I checked and the highway no longer exists.

received very little attention from Petersburg critics — I would suggest we add "Saint Petersburg" as a whole. Is it customary to remove "Saint" from future mentions?

all create an uneasy and oppressive atmosphere accompanied by the thoughts of the many prisoners who have passed through this road – This is a good interpretation/analysis, but it would work better as a direct quote from the art expert. Otherwise it may be unecyclopedic.

The only signs of hope are the bright spot in the horizon and the distant white church.[23][24][25][26] — This is a WP:CITEKILL incident. Do we really need these many sources for this claim? Perhaps we can expand the info and spread these out? I'm happy to help you add them all into one source (i.e. cite merging).

Additional comments[edit]

I want to bring up that this article, in Russian Wikipedia, is in Feature Article status. I noticed that there is a full section called Эскизы, этюды и повторения (Sketches, studies and repetitions) that could be used here, too. Could there be a chance you can add that here? I think the source is valuable and worth adding her to broaden the scope of this article prior to promotion.

Sources and images check out and everything else looks good. Thanks for the wonderful article. MX (✉ • ✎) 22:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MX: I've implemented the above changes. Regarding the citekill issue, I removed the one citation by the same author, which was essentially a repetition. Additionally, I included a section for sketches and replications. It is shorter than the ruwiki article because the ruwiki article seems to go into excessive detail about why Chekhov rejected the sketch, which I believe is irrelevant to an article about painting. Thank you for the great review! — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA assessment[edit]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Concerns have been addressed. Article is promoted to GA status. MX (✉ • ✎) 17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.