Talk:Tristan Tzara/GA1

GA Review

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 9, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass - although with some issues

2. Factually accurate?: Pass - definately enough refs

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass - perhaps overly detailed

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass - couldn't fin anything wrong.

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass - barely but it is not an article that would require many images anyways.

 If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

Now in more detail I can say that I still have some issues with the article, altough it is good enough to be listed as a good article. Here are the suggestions if anyone would want to take the article to FA:

1. firstly, the article is perhaps overly detailed. The article almost contains unnecessary details.
2. waaay too many red links. I understand that those people are not important and that is why no article is written about then... but then, should their name be here in the first place? This is closely related to the previous point. I believe that the article would make a lot of sense without so much overly-detailed information. Right now, it reads really hard, and I had problems concentrating on the point of the argument. This page should not be a book, and the information should not be copied word-by-word from the referencing books.
3. this is perhaps not essential, but an FA would definately require it: MORE images. Even the portrait is at least a little ambigous. I bet there is one free picture somewhere with his bust, and that there are some pictures somewhere with his work.

I hope it helped and good luck with the article. Nergaal (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Nergaal, and I'm glad that, for most part, you found the article to your liking. Please excuse my delay in answering your queries, but I'm facing a RL crisis that prevented me from logging in regularly.

Now, let me address your concerns one by one, in the order you gave them:

1. perhaps it is detailed, but I would argue it isn't over-detailed. Virtually all events discussed in detail are mentioned in more than two sources, and I took care to expand on the bare narrative only as a means to summarize the subjects of contention between sources, what sources take as examples illustrating his major attitudes, what events are viewed as seminal in his career and why that is etc. Part of your second argument also fits under point 1: the "not a book" and "copied word by word" part. For the "not a book" argument, see the first part of my answer above. For the "not copied": yes, they actually should be rendered verbatim in cases where they express an opinion that is or can be challenged.
2. actually, though there are quite a few red links, they are not excessive compared to other articles (though perhaps not to other FAs). And no, it does not follow that red links are necessarily about unimportant people: the weird dynamics of wikipedia have notoriously prioritized the trivial, and all those red links can and should be filled (I plan to fill most of them with time). In any case, the elimination or filling of red links is neither a GA nor (unless they appear in the lead) an FA criterion.
3. six images is quite okay for an FA (meaning there are many with less, and even some with none). Concerning his portrait: I have looked far and wide for another PD image of Tzara, and was very glad to found this one (it appears to be the only one yet). But his other portraits by even more famous artists should be PD material in the next ten (Delaunay) or twenty years (Giacometti). I should add: sculptures of Tzara may be photographed and the photos published here (unless they are taken in countries such as Italy), but photos of such sculptures found on the net or scanned from some book cannot be published: the photos themselves would have to be released into the public domain. Dahn (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make clear my initial point: I liked the article, but it is so verbose, that in places I found it really hard to read. I imagine that somebody not knowing anything about the subject from the beginning would be tired/bored at some point and aither just skip forward or stop. Otherwise, the quality is there! Nergaal (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)