# Talk:Alexander Buchan (artist)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexander Buchan (artist)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 03:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll get this review. I'll have comments within the next day or so. Etriusus (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Intro

He died after the second one, the "second one" what? I think you mean seizure but it can also be interpreted as he went on a second voyage.
Rewritten
The intro as a whole is very short, can you expand this at all?
Did a little bit; let me know if there is something else you'd like included
The page would be improved substantially with an infobox
Added, although I don't have a lot of data to put in
Background

he was "young" when he was hired this contradicts the previous point. Reword it to say "he was described as 'young'..."
Done something
aware of this at the time. reword: "aware of this at the time he was hired"
there needs to be a sentence on why he was hired, otherwise the sentence "According to Averil Lysaght..." doesn't make sense.
evidence that he exhibited work Who exhibited work? Buchan? Banks?
Rewritten to hopefully address the three previous points.
Buchan family of North Berwick Specify this is Scotland.
Done, good point.
It could be a self portrait, Reword: It has been proposed to be as self portrat
done.
Voyage with Captain Cook

could use these to show them to his friends notable?
Removed (this is more or less what we have in the second Banks quote)
"coastal profiles" elaborate on what this is
Tried to explain. Odd that we don't seem to have an article.
To Banks' great relief, Buchan recovered. Puffery, in general, this sentence needs rewording to be encyclopedic.
Banks did write "thank god" but I have cut this short.
put Bank's quote in a quote block.
Done.
Death at Tahiti

he also stated about Buchan's work What work? his paintings?
I guess, but I shortened to "Buchan". He might also have mentioned the coastal work; Buchan's Rio de Janeiro is pretty good (see here for the middle third: [1], unfortunately I'm not sure this is PD) Lysaght (and I think some of my other sources too) is a bit surprised that Cook praised him so much, and wonders whether some other artwork was lost.
put Bank's quote in a quote block.
Done, also for Cook's.
Artworks and legacy

Maybe put a gallery template here and move some of his artwork here. The page's layout, specifically the last image is a bit clunky.
Tried something, please have a look.
Kusma Here are my initial thoughts. The article plays the pronoun game a bit too much and it can get confusing without clarification. Please let me know if there are any questions/concerns. Etriusus (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and for the useful suggestions! I'll look through your points in detail probably later today. —Kusma (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Etriusus, would you like to take another look? I have tried to address your comments (and I hope I haven't messed anything up!) —Kusma (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma, I only have one final edit before signing off on the article. I went ahead and copy edited the article a small bit. Let me know if there's anything I changed that you disagree with. The templates added make the page flow substantially better. Overall, an excellent read about an otherwise obscure person. Excellent work!!Etriusus (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Etriusus, glad you like it! Please review changes since your last edit and let me know if there is anything else. —Kusma (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
the people are more elegantly proportioned Who stated this? It reads like OR.
That's what Bernard Smith (art historian) said. Instead of going for a direct quote, I have rewritten this part a bit, hopefully making it fit better with the rest of the article.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Yes
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Yes
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
@Kusma Article passes GA review. Good work! Etriusus (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)