Talk:Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

As this the first of the reviewee's articles that I have reviewed, they should note that I am a grammar pendant and will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Please note that this article is written in British English, so any grammar tweaks you feel are needed should be in line with BrEng practice, rather than any other variant. Theis includes not including a comma after the opening date of a sentence (ie, "In 1920 Bloch went" is correct, without a comma), and the definite article is used throughout (ie. "the art historian john smith", etc). Just to allay your fears that I may be some novice in writing, I have over 60 FAs, numerous FLs and I don't know how many GAs to my name. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Ooh, noted. I wasn't aware of more than just spelling changes. I make sure to check out who I'm reviewing so that I'm not talking down to veterans like Wehwalt or Johnbod. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    • (Just re-read my comment again and it looks like I'm coming across as a big headed tosser! I'm not - I was just trying to let you know I'm not a novice, although, as with all experienced writers I've seen on WP, I know there will be possibly be typos in there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Running this article through Earwig's Copyvio Scanner revealed an impressive 91.8% chance of copyright violation from the Saatchiart listing for this painting. There are two more suspect listings, for 63.4% chance of violation and 53.1% chance. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Vami_IV, Then the text for this article (which has been present since April 2017) has been lifted from this site. It's not the first time I've seen an article I've written lifted by someone else without attribution. (Just for the record, These are the 189 edits I made to the article; you can see the article progression and how it was developed and built up before stolen by other sources. The Saatchi Art plagiarism is an easy one to spot if you examine their text fully:

The first paragraph ends "Wassily Kandinsky in 1911 and Clive Bell in 1914.[37]": we have "[37]" as the link to citation 37 - it is meaningless on the Saatchi article.

Note also in the same paragraph the two rogue "]" at the end of sentences. We have them as part of the citations - they are meaningless on the Saatchi article.

The third paragraph reads "The Woman in Gold) is a painting" (no opening bracket, as we have in ours).

Same paragraph, "the sitter's husband, Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer [de], a Jewish banker": the "[de]" is the link we have on our site to the German Wiki article - it is meaningless on the Saatchi article.

I've had an entire chapter of a book mostly made up from the FA I wrote for the Siege of Sidney Street and it angers me each time I see example of sites too lazy to write their own copy or to link to this site by way of attribution. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I did not know, but I figured annoying shit like this happens with Wikipedia content. I'll strike off this section now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Prose

• The theft of this painting by the Nazis is mentioned twice in the lead. I recommend dissolving the second half of the first paragraph, and giving the sentence In 2006, [...] to the last paragraph. This will make the first paragraph awfully short, so combine it with the first a little bit; describe it there, then go into the history, with The portrait is the final and most fully representative work of Klimt's golden phase. It was the first of two depictions of Adele by Klimt—the second was completed in 1912; these were two of several works by the artist that the family owned. as the transition.
  • Done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• including the Burgtheater, the Kunsthistorisches Museum [...] Viennese Künstlerhaus [...] Wiener Bankverein As placenames, rather than titles of artworks, these should not be italicized, despite being in German.
  • Done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Klimt worked in Vienna during the Belle Époque, Belle Epoque shouldn't be italicized, either.
  • Done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Wiener Secession (Vienna Secession) Delete the italicized texts and substitute with the linked text.
  • Done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• The gold frame Was it made of gold or just leafed?
  • Clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• filed for probate Link?
  • Done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• displayed in London as part of the Austria in London exhibition Any particular museum?
  • This isn't clear. From some unreliable sources and reading between the lines, it looks like it may have either been a special exhibition somewhere, or spread over several locations. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• which had appeared in two of Klimt's paintings, Redundant.
  • Done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Nazi general Reinhard Heydrich. Not accurate; Heydrich was a police official, not a military man.
  • Done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• to gain priority access to his selection of the collection Condense.
  • Done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• In 1946 the newly reconstituted Austrian state—no longer the Ostmark of the war years—issued an Annulment Act that declared all transactions motivated by Nazi discrimination were void, although any Jews who wanted to remove artwork from Austria were forced to give some of their works to Austrian museums in order to obtain a necessary export permit in exchange for others. Too long, has some redundancy.
  • Trimmed. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Altmann and Schoenberg sued the Austrian government and the Galerie Belvedere in the US courts. Which court exactly?
  • More than one, I am led to believe. As far as I can see, they argued the case in several. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• The Austrian government filed for dismissal, based on arguments around the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (1976). The Act granted immunity to sovereign nations except under certain conditions. Condense.
  • I'm not sure this can be, without losing some of the information. I've tweaked the first part a little anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Name and link the three arbitrators in the prose, but keep the details of their selection in Footnote 12.
  • Done. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• before the painting left the country Wait, was Altmann not living in Austria? Why were the paintings leaving Austria?
  • Clarified a little earlier than Altmann was living in the US. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

GA progress

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

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.