Talk:The Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Style

• Could "Description" as a section header be "Image and imagery"? I don't know if 'Description' is standard, but it doesn't cover the fact the section includes good discussion of said description and the imagery and symbolism.
• Lead appropriate length for article.
• Could have better layout (i.e. section headings)
• Very well written throughout, strong voice
• The paragraph structure is logical and eases reading
• Passes - but I would give section headings a look

Coverage

• The article doesn't mention "The Geneva Copy", even though there's a whole commons cat devoted to it.
• Doesn't include the claim in at least one of the sources that it may be the artist's best Immaculate Conception, which seems like an oversight.
• One of the sources discusses more history (including botched restoration) that are not included in the article.
• While discussion of the importance of the belief in IC at the time, there's perhaps too much focus on this for such a short article.
• Fails - misses some things that feel apt, includes excess info on a related topic.

Verifiability

• As a note, refs 3 and 6 (now 5) are were the same link. Of course, ref 3 is used to source only one statement, which has two other refs anyway, so I've removed it now.
• "Description" section needs inline references; it is currently a long paragraph with three refs at the end, and no indication as to what parts of the section these pertain. Moved the refs during copyvio check.
• The cited source doesn't contain mention of "the Lady of Elche and several pieces of the Treasure of Guarrazar", is there meant to be another ref?
• Fails - uncited statement

Neutrality

• Has a good voice and remains neutral
• ...maybe too "neutral" (see coverage)
• Passes

Stability

• No major changes in months
• Passes

Illustration

• Uses the clearest of the many commons images of the artwork in question.
• Passes

Copyvio

• Source 1 good; the phrase "her hands crossed over her chest" is not quoted and used completely, but there are few other ways to say this (one, using 'bosom' is used in another source, so)
• Source 2 good
• Source 3 (was 4) good
• Source 4 (was 5) good
• Source 5 (was 6) good
• Passes

Overall

•  On hold - See comments. Really nice article, but I'd like to push to get better coverage because the gaps seem significant. And the uncited statement can't fly, sorry! Kingsif (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominating editor has been nominating several articles and not answering assessments. His other Art nomination was recently failed. You might want to try to ping Valereee or one of the active editrs to take over since the nominating editor has been a no show previously at GAN, and has not edited at all since August 22. CodexJustin (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, unlike the nominator, who has not edited the article since April, you have now edited it, which is laudable, but may disqualfy you as reviewer. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, pinging @Valeree: who may be interested in responding. Also, thank you Johnbod :) and I feel cleaning up references are not significant enough edits to disqualify. Kingsif (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, pinging @Valereee: if interested. Kingsif (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, thanks for the ping...ugh, I hate to see your work go to waste because the nom flaked out on you.

IIRC I edited this article so many times because it was at DYK, had already been promoted, I was checking the set, and this one needed help qualifying. Other than whatever fixes I did, I'm unfamiliar with the sources and the subject, don't speak Spanish, and have no knowledge of art. I had never even heard of the Geneva Copy. :D I'd be happy to help, but honestly you probably know this article a lot better than I do. If you want to try to make the fixes you've suggested, and then I could complete the review for you, I could do that? But I don't think I can get up to speed enough to fix the coverage issues. I wouldn't want you not to get credit for the review, though, since you've obviously done all the heavy lifting. Hm...not sure how to work this out.

Wait, GA reviewers aren't allowed to do any direct editing of an article they're reviewing? It would never have occurred to me that even a minor edit would disqualify a reviewer. If that's a rule, I've broken it on multiple occasions, as often I'll see a problem that's quicker to fix than it is to request a fix on. --valereee (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod, Valereee, and Kingsif: If one of you or both of you could make the needed edits, then I don't really see a major issue under the circumstances, that Valereee be allowed to finish things up. If needed, perhaps Johnbod or I could do a final sign-off once the two of you complete the needed edits. I think the "credit" for who did what is secondary to making sure that this article reaches a state of assessment which deserves to be promoted or not. CodexJustin (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to do any work on it. All the sources are from the Prado, which isn't enough at GA, imo. Best left as a decent "C". Also I don't want to encourage more premature noms from this quarter. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I may continue to do some work on it, but I feel there's a lot of missing coverage on this, which also isn't available in the Prado sources, so it would take a while to bring it up - also seeing the similar issues in the other GA nom and hearing that it was unsatisfactory until cleaned up by a dedicated DYK reviewer makes me feel this should be left at that "C" because it was clearly premature, then renommed if worked on. Any other views from @Valereee:? Kingsif (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, I agree with you. This article was probably a premature nom for GA. Without continuing interest from the nom, I think it's probably just a fail. --valereee (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. Gets a fail.

Kingsif (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]