# Talk:Bed hangings

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bed hangings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ballpointbiro (talk · contribs) 13:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this is the first article I've reviewed so I am completely open to being told I'm wrong!

Thank you very much for your time in reviewing it, and providing such helpful feedback.
No problem. I'm glad it was helpful, I'm delighted to give this article GA status! Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


### 1 - Writing
Overall I think the tone is spot on and the lead section is great, there are just a few minor things I picked up on:

Grammar
Sentence punctuation is inside quotation marks in a few places:
"furniture,"
valences."
Grove."
I use the American style, where punctuation is within quotation marks.
Ok, forgive me, I'm accustomed to reading British English. Ballpointbiro (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The word Renaissance (referring to the historical period) isn't consistently capitalised.
I have double-checked this in the Chicago Style Manual and in another style guide, and formal periods are capitalized, while adjectives would not be. I've made certain that my usage accords with this guideline, but I am happy to change the adjective if needed.TrudiJ (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, I think it's a transatlantic problem. No need to change it. Ballpointbiro (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I think parts of the Categories of bed hangings section need to be in a proper list format. See H:LIST for a guide on this.
Thank you for the suggestion! You are right, this is much better and easier to read.TrudiJ (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The Artifacts section starts with "It is possible that...". The sentence is supported by an inline quotation but I would recommend attributing it explicitly in the sentence.
I hope that I understood your suggestion correctly. I've changed the sentence to start, "According to Hedlund,..." TrudiJ (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, perfect. Ballpointbiro (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


### 2 - Accuracy and verifiabillity
There is an extensive list of sources and inline citations are provided at all neccessary points. I would suggest renaming the Notes and References sections to References and Sources respectively, but I think that's personal preference more than anything else and I'm certainly not demanding it.

Thank you for this suggestion. I looked into it further, and found this guide for shortened footnotes. I am using the headings there, but I can see the point for your suggested revision. TrudiJ (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I hadn't encountered this style of footnotes before. Totally with you on this. Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


### 3 - Coverage
The article is broad in scope, and seems to cover the topic extensively. It discusses the physical attributes of bed hangings (material and embroidery) and historical context.


### 4 - Neutrality
The article is neutral in tone.


### 5 - Stability
The article is stable, there are no edit wars taking place.


### 6 - Appropriate illustration
I view all the images as being appropriate, and there are no copyright violations. I didn't know about the Met's Open Access Program, what a great resource! I do have a few comments on the illustrations though:

All the images are aligned right and "stack up", pushing the bottom image into the References section (on my monitor at any rate). I would suggest staggering the images, and getting them lined up with the section of text that they relate to. See WP:PIC for more information on how to do this.
The image captions are a little bit inconsistent, for example one says "From the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art" where another says only "Metropolitan Museum of Art". Also some captions are sentence fragments, and some are full sentences. See MOS:CAPTION
Thank you for referring me to these help pages. I will work on fixing the placement of the pictures and the captions on 3/6. I learned a lot about image placement and best practices for captions from your review. Thank you so much! If you see more adjustments I should make, please let me know. TrudiJ (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
No problem, it takes a bit of fiddling to get right. The page looks a lot neater now and the pictures are next to the relevant sections. Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have done a bit of tweaking to the image locations to avoid the undesirable effect described at MOS:SANDWICH. Also, I think the article may have too many images clustered around a small space. Perhaps a gallery would alleviate this problem. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)