 | Anna Gaskell was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 18, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Before the article gets reviewed for "GA" status edit
Ashthefox: I see this article is up for GA. Before someone begins that review, it would be advisable to ensure that everything is cited, including a reliable reference (not from Gaskell's CV) for each item in the list of exhibitions. I've flagged this up but no action seems to have been taken.
The same applies to the list of Awards. Citations are needed because it is all very well to claim exhibitions, awards, and other distinctions, but how can readers verify those claims?
Also difficult to verify are words like "haunting" (1996) and "potent" (1997), to name but two. In general on Wikipedia, adjectives need to be direct quotations, in inverted commas, to a cited reliable source. Probably best to remove them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anna Gaskell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kunstfilmbiennale.de/winner2005.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Anna Gaskell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Reviewing. But it will take some strong arguments to persuade me that this should not be a quick fail. It currently consists of a paragraph of actual biography, a long section about her work written entirely in obfuscatory and largely content-free jargon (international art English, to be specific), and a long and indiscriminate bulleted list of exhibitions and awards. I think this is very far from meeting Good Article criteria 1a ("the prose is clear and concise"), 1b (particularly WP:USEPROSE and "words to watch"), 2b (I removed a cleanup tag, but many sources are primary sales sites for art galleries), 3b (unnecessary detail of non-notable exhibits), and 4 (the assertion of editorial claims about her artworks as if they were facts rather than attributing these claims to the sources that made them strikes me as non-neutral). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- The main problem is the lack of reviews - I'm happy to add some, but the vacuous IAE (also POV, it appears) does need, er, quite a bit (as we Brits say) of copy-editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looking more closely, I see that the nominator has only ever worked on this one article, and hasn't contributed for over a month. Rather than continuing to drag it out, I'm just going to go ahead and fail this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Very wise, yes, it looks unlikely they'll be back in time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looking more closely, I see that the nominator has only ever worked on this one article, and hasn't contributed for over a month. Rather than continuing to drag it out, I'm just going to go ahead and fail this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- The main problem is the lack of reviews - I'm happy to add some, but the vacuous IAE (also POV, it appears) does need, er, quite a bit (as we Brits say) of copy-editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)