Talk:Brushstrokes series/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 03:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Will review, comments to follow in the next couple days. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Interesting article, looks good thus far. A few comments on the lead and first section.
• "The series is considered a satire or parody of gestural painting." Might want to note who considers it, the painter or critics (or both)?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• "The works in this series are linked to those produced by the gestural painting style" Is there a better way to word this? i.e. "produced by artists who use the gestural painting style"?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Might want to link the artists in the first paragraph of "Background".
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Later he produced an 8-print Brushstroke Figures" Should this be "eight-print"?
  • Yes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Check for consistency in capitalizing "Abstract Expressionism".
• Might want to double check the ellipsis use for compliance with MOS:ELLIPSIS. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I have it now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for your patience, resuming review:
• "The satirical element of the Brushstroke was obvious to many because it is a calculated presentation of the spontaneous gestural works of the day." Is there a good way to keep the same tense here, to avoid the "was... is".
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• In the first paragraph of "Details" you use "depict", might want to try for some more variation.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• "it was Pollack who brought dynamic movement to the canvas in the 1950s" This is the first mention of him, so you might want to introduce him, or at least add a link.
  • He is already linked above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ahh, I see what the problem was now ([1]), I hadn't noticed the typo either. I had done a control+f for "Pollack" and didn't get any other hits. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• " in works such as" occurs in consecutive sentences, might want to rephrase one.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• " He expropriated the most basic element of Expressionism in his own style both in painting and in sculpture." Is the use of the capital correct here?
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• In the last paragraph of "Details" and "Critical response" you should probably identify who you're quoting in text.
• The last paragraph of "Details" doesn't seem to flow very well to me. I know that's a pretty vague comment, (I hate when reviewers are vague) I'll reread it again later and try to explain my thoughts better. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it any better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, I think that cleared things up, passing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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.