Talk:M. C. Escher/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Feitlebaum (talk · contribs) 00:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I have only partial reviewed this article for now; I'll try to get back and finish as soon as possible.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   The article is very well written for the most part; however, there were a few awkward spots:

• "...but his works have been thought too intellectual and insufficiently lyrical. The advent of movements such as conceptual art has to a degree reversed the art world's attitude to the intellectual and the lyrical in art..."

The repetition of the words intellectual and lyrical doesn't feel very smooth. What kind of synonyms would we use to fix this?

Reworded, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• There was another sentence somewhere in the body of the article that felt off, but I'll have to find it again. Oops. I've looked through the article several time, but I am unable to find that sentence. I'd recommend you keep an eye out for it so that it can be corrected later.

I'll fix it if I see it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• A note: I changed the spelling of the word Mediaeval to Medieval, as I felt this spelling is slightly more standardized. If you feel that it should be changed back, feel free to.

Thanks. Sadly, that depauperate spelling is becoming the norm. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The article is compliant with all of the applicable MoS guidelines.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   The reference section looks properly formatted.

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   There's only a couple of problem references, and the rest look fine:

• Ref 2 [1] appears to be made primarily for selling prints of Mr. Escher's work. This appears to be in conflict WP: IRS, which states that "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" are not recommended as sources. While it's technically OK in some cases to cite websites like this, I believe it would be preferable to cite another source, such as a biography. Much of the info that this cite is used for is basic biographical information, anyway, that other references should be able to cover.

I have added a reference in many of the same places to the museum site In het Paleis, which corroborates much of the still-useful chronology. Since the chronology is accurate, and usefully collects together and presents the data clearly, it seems appropriate to leave it for now. If an academic site or textbook puts up an equally useful chronology at some point, we can switch to that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 9 [2] doesn't look very professional, and even though it's a university website, it doesn't provide any sources of its own, and it hasn't been updated since 2000. This one should probably be replaced.</stikre>

Removed. It was only used for one fact, and that's covered by other refs now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

   Everything appears to be properly cited, with no OR.

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I didn't find anything which looked remotely plagiarized, so this checks out.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The article sufficiently covers all aspects of Mr. Escher's life and art. I do have one minor concern, however—the "Honours and Distinction" section has but one sentence, which mentions that he received a knighthood. Is there any way that we could expand this section with additional information? I don't believe it's that important, but it feels odd to have a level 2 subheader with only one sentence below it.

Merged the sentence into the biography. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

1. B. Focused (see summary style):

   The size of the article is good, and the article doesn't drift away from the subject. The focus of the article is maintained quite well.

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Mr. Escher's life is presented in a completely neutral way, and covers his achievements without the use of peacock words.

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The article has remained stable since it was nominated for GA-status.

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All of the non-free images appear to have the proper rational, except for one, possibly? File:Leeuwarden - Tegeltableau Escher.jpg is listed as "own work," but the image description implies that it is a work made by Mr. Escher himself, from what I am reading. Could you please clarify exactly what licensing this image is under?

The photograph of the wall (with the tableau) was made by the Wikipedia editor, so own work is correct. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

1. B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The images are all relevant and contribute greatly to the article's coverage.

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I've passed the article now. Congratulations!

Thank you very much for the review! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)