Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Hello. I will be doing the review of this article. I happen to know a bit about the work of art, so I'm pleased I'll get to be doing the review. Often times, I review articles with subject matter of little or no interest to me, so this is a nice change of pace. Enough about me...overall the article is well written and sourced. There are, however, a few issues to be worked out before I can pass it:
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be three full paragraphs. They should summarize all the main points of the article.
Numbers under 100 (even centuries) should be spelled out.
Citations should go after punctuation marks or at the end of sentences.
A variety of explanations have been proposed for this split perspective, which has even been suggested by Hartt to have been a practical joke. Are the brackets meant to be there?
In the reference section, all books need there isbn numbers included.
Like I said, not too much to fix. After all of this is done, I'll copy edit the article and pass it. I'm putting the article on hold for one week. If at the end of the week, no real progress has been made, I'll fail the article. If the article is still being actively edited and improved, I have no problem extending the hold. Good work! Nikki31120:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll give for the numbers...that isn't a big deal. However, unless I am misreading something, the lead should be three paragraphs. According to the link you provided, which is what I also was referring to, articles with around 32,000 should be two or three paragraphs. Moreover articles over 30,000 should have three or four. This article has 33,000. Because the article is over 30,000 and over (but still close to) 32,000 , I believe it should have three. Nikki31121:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, as I said, I hadn't counted; is that visible chars, btw? - oh no it isn't. I make it 25,343 excluding spaces, and 30,182 with. That is how length is counted for DYK, so presumably for this purpose also. I'm not saying more would not be better, but the guideline language is relatively flexible. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen it counted like that, but then again, I've never done a DYK. I really don't care, but in my experience, it is easier to adequately summarize all the main points of an article with a longer lead, otherwise important stuff gets left out. I'm not going to fail the article for only having two paragraphs...that was never my intention. At this point, though, given the language of the guideline, either way is fine with me. Nikki31123:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I should be able to make all these changes quickly. I think you are interpreting the lead guideline a little too mathetically rigidly (especially because the definition of a "paragraph" has no such precision) but will comply. I also think you are wrong about the centuries; please see 15th century, 16th century, etc. The brackets I believe are an artifact of the editing process. Savidan23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the books does not have an ISBN. As for the citation locations, I have fixed two; I assume you did not mean this comment to apply to citations in sections offset by parentheses or dashes. I have left one more citation as is in the "Inscription" section, which is necessary to distinguish which portions of that sentence came from which source. Savidan00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Dashes are the exception to the rule, and it is fine about the book with no isbn. What about the citation infront of the ")" under Uccello. I've never seen it that way before, always after the closing parenthesis. Nikki31100:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right, and I'll pass the article. I'm sorry about some of the confusion with my statements...I'm still relatively new to GA reviewing, and some things you just learn as you go. Great work to all editors involved. Nikki31100:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
