Talk:A Polish Nobleman/GA1
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Moswento in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Moswento (talk · contribs) 10:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Yo, Piotrus. I'll aim to get a review of this done today. I'll definitely have a few comments, but overall it looks good. Moswento talky 10:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Overall
- This is a great article, which covers all the main aspects of the scholarly discussions around the painting, as well as giving the casual reader a quick summary if they stumble across the title somewhere. I have a few mostly minor comments below, and then I'll be 100% ready to promote this to GA (unless in the course of addressing the comments you introduce a large amount of original research, plagiarism, or unrelated bovine jokes). Good work! Moswento talky 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Lead
- I would add the painting's date to the first sentence.
- I think the lead could do with being more explicit about the fact that the subject of the painting is unknown. That is, after all, one of the most interesting facts about the painting for scholars.
- Description
- I did a quick copy edit on this - you might want to check to see if I've unintentionally changed meaning.
- "estimated by some to be 45 years of age" - Who are the "some"? At the moment, this seems to be just based on the view of Mr Bode.
- The footnote for the description - this is fine as it is, but it might be more conventional to write: "This description is based on [Citation for Mr Bode], as cited by Odlozilik"
- Not sure which footnote do you mean? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- History and analysis
- Sentence beginning "This work may be labeled..." is currently two sentences rolled into one. I would suggest splitting at "costume. For instance, Melissa...".
- "on this painting" - I'm doubting myself here, but "in this painting"?
- "At least one scholar" - "Kurt Bauch" would be better, to avoid vagueness.
- "In 1963 Otakar Odlozilik..." - This sentence feels a bit long and clunky. I might put two sentences like: "In 1963 Otakar Odlozilik conducted research on this issue, suggesting that the figure may be Andrzej Rej, a Polish nobleman and diplomat. Rej was passing through Amsterdam, where Rembrandt was working, at the time the painting was created."
- Sources
- Both of the sources used are good scholarly reliable sources. Everything cited to the JSTOR article checks out too. I don't think this relies too heavily on one source because Odlozilik gives a good overview of other secondary literature and is not unbalanced.
- Image
- The image is fine. Very nice!
- @User:Moswento: I addressed all issues, I hope. Please let me know if anything remains!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up comments edit
A significant amount of information has been added to the article since my initial review, so I have two additional comments below. Thank you for your patience! Moswento talky 17:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- History
- "The painting's provenance is as follows:" - could you possibly rework this to prose? It reads a bit oddly at the moment, especially the "possibly Harman van Swole".
- Analysis
- I think it would be clearer to rework paragraph 3 slightly. At the moment, the order of facts is slightly confusing and the prose a bit choppy. My suggestion would be:
- Add to paragraph 2 the fact that Odlozilik thought it was Mr Rej, and also that he concedes we may never know who it really is
- Start paragraph 3 with the fact that when Odlozilik was writing, he and most other scholars thought it was a real Polish noble. Then offer the other views that it may have been a self-portrait, or not a real person at all.
- @User:Moswento: done, please check [1]. Is this sufficient? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)