Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Romaine Brooks

Romaine Brooks edit

I've been working on this artist bio off and on for a few months and have undoubtedly lost all ability to tell whether I'm being clear. I haven't put it through the GA process yet, but I'm interested in finding out what it will take to bring it all the way to FA.

I'm working on a short article about Gluck (that dashing young artist who inexplicably chose a name that sounds like a chicken noise) so the one remaining redlink will be gone soon. —Cel ithemis 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou edit

Great! And what an interesting personality! And that is exactly the succcess of a good article: to reveal the intriguing aspects of a personality. This is one of the cases I believe a reviewer is mainly redundant. Some minor and possibly trivia things:

"When a fellow student left a book open on her stool with pornographic passages underlined, she picked it up and hit him in the face with it. She had no further difficulties." No difficulties with what? Further sexual harassments? I just don't like so much this little phrase.
"hated the constant socializing on which Barney thrived". I think "hated" is a very strong verb. But if you think it is definitely the right word and you can verify its accuracy ...
I'd like the photo captions a bit more informative (some comments, whereabouts of the painting etc.). But it seems we have a different philosophy in this issue. I usually transfer information in the captions and do not over-analyze a painting in the text. You, on the other hand, incorporate analyses of significant paintings within your prose and keep the captions laconic.
And do not forget to alphabetize the categories at the end of the article.

In general, I think the article has a good chance in FAC. About the prose I'm not the best to comment, but it looked to me fine. And the research is definitely more than fine (25+ references when more FACs have not more than 5-6).--Yannismarou 08:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]