Wikipedia:Peer review/The Thankful Poor/archive1

The Thankful Poor

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it before it goes on the front page for DYK (March 5) and before it gets reviewed for Good Article status.

Edit: The Thankful Poor is now a good article, but I would like to see if anyone can help me get it to Featured Article status.

Thanks, GeneralPoxter (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (I have done it for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Article looks in good shape to me, although art isn't my speciality. I would just take it to FAC, where it is more likely to get eyes. Worst that can happen is it's not promoted! (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support! However, one of the editors who worked with me on this article and who was invaluable towards helping it reach Good was Theramin, who suggested that more sources could be found to expand historical background. I'll give them a while to continue their research before submitting to FAC. GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

I like peer reviews, just didn't get to it yet.

Lead

• I normally look at the lead last, but see already that it looks shortish for a FA
• African American vs. African-American?
• "current" is a no-no word, and if kept should be accompanied by "as of 2021"
• no need for quotation marks for "milestone", I think
• "Over the years" adds nothing for me.

Analysis

• "Annunciation", "Good Shepherd" - I doubt that our multicultural readership will know what these terms mean.
• "Professor" is not usually added, rather a description of what he knows.

Background

• A section of this title is missing, but wanted for a FA, best before Analysis. Explaining Tanner's upbringing and family would help understand the analysis, also when - if we know - he painted it for whom.

References

• Why are some refs short, and others not?

Good topic, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Buidhe

• History and reception is longer than preferred (I try to keep sections to no more than 5 mid-size paragraphs). The section could stand to be divided into subsections or broken up for increased readability. (t · c) buidhe 00:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• @Gerda Arendt and Buidhe: I made some edits to the article and would like to see what you think:

Lead

"I normally look at the lead last, but see already that it looks shortish for a FA" I have tried expanding the lead multiple times, but this seems to be something I tend to struggle with. I think some outside help on this would be nice.

"African American vs. African-American?" For some reason while I was writing this article, I was under the impression that "African-American" is the adjective form and "African American" is the noun form. A quick search disproved this, so I changed all instances of "African-American" to "African American".

Analysis

"'Annunciation', 'Good Shepherd' - I doubt that our multicultural readership will know what these terms mean." I do not believe knowledge of what exactly the Annunciation and the Good Shepherd refer to is required here. The article already describes these as "biblical scenes" distinct from The Thankful Poor, and I think that is the key takeaway the reader should have.

Background

I moved parts of History and reception into the newly formed Background section (which should also take care of buidhe's concerns over section length). I mainly focused on the artistic and social background, as I think Analysis already deals with family influences. Moving such family influences from Analysis into Background might be awkward, since I think the article flows better as is.

References

"Why are some refs short, and others not?" I used short refs for sources I used commonly and throughout the article which also require page number refs. For sources that are not used as much and/or are websites without page numbers, there was no need for short refs. It also would not make much sense to place journal articles which I only used as sources in the footnotes in the bibliography as well.

All other suggestions were applied.

Let me know if there are any further changes that need to be made. I'm considering adding another Mosby source that Bruce1ee mentioned in RX, but I'm not sure if this is necessary before FAC. GeneralPoxter (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement. The "History and reception" section is still longer than ideal but I'm not seeing a natural split point. (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ideally you should all sources to make it comprehensive before opening a FAC. There shouldn't usually be expansion post-FAC because the article is already comprehensive. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I finished adding stuff from the Sewell & Mosby source and also split up the history section. The subtitles might be a bit too wordy though. GeneralPoxter (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm very pleased with the changes, at a glance, and will look closer later. Formality in peer reviews, for the next round of comments: you don't have to repeat what a reviewer said but can reply right under a bulleted item. Compare the review for BWV 1. Leave the above as it is, but next round of comments, try that ;) - As you can see in the article: I treat all sources the same, making the short refs look neater, but won't push for that, - you decide. All my comments are just suggestions that you can take on board or not, unless I say: this must change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I adopted a full short-ref citation style, and now the references section looks plenty times cleaner. Thanks for the suggestion! GeneralPoxter (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment from GeneralPoxter

Suggestions made by Gerda and buidhe were both really helpful in improving article quality and scope. New sources from RX more than doubled the size of the article since it reached Good article status. I now feel more confident that most of the major concerns expressed by the two peer reviewers and Theramin have been addressed, and will now submit the article to FAC for review. GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)