# Talk:C. R. W. Nevinson

Image:N625.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christopher R. W. Nevinson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am starting a Review of this article for possible Good Article status. 
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 21:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc  Shearonink (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Still checking these out. Shearonink (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
All the tate URLs have apparently changed since this article was written, please update them to the most recent version. (See Checklinks.)Shearonink (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
On 1 December 1016 the Tate updated their website and among the many changes they made they replaced the Artists Biographies pages with Wikipedia articles so the first reference in the WP Nevinson article is now a circular reference to itself. I can't find the original Richard Cork authored biography on their website so all I can suggest is to delete that reference. In a handful of cases the Tate have restored their original biography articles to sit alongside the WP article on their site but obviously not in this case.
Regarding the other two Tate references;- it used to be the case that the Display caption page and the more extensive Catalogue entry page were separate pages on the Tate website so you could link directly to one or the other. The Tate seems to have made them into a single tabbed page with the Display caption being the foremost. In this article both references are to the Catalogue entry so you have to tab through to them from the Display caption pages. I have tried a few things but can't get the Reference link to go directly to the Catalogue entry. Any suggestions ? 14GTR (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a way to link one without the other.  As long as it goes to the connected page and there isn't a faulty result (like a 404 etc.), the ref/linkage is fine. Shearonink (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 
Ran the copyvio tool - no issues found, everything looks good so far. Shearonink (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
I like how it lays out the difficulties Nevinson had throughout his life - the boasting about his WWI record, the fights he had with fellow artists, and so on.  Gives the reader a full measure of the man. Shearonink (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Gives the reader Nevinson's good, bad, and ugly. Shearonink (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
The images all check out with one exception - I am troubled by the rationale/description of the photograph of Nevinson.  The File information at Commons states that it is the uploader's own work.  That is almost impossible - the photo is of Nevinson during his WWI years, the editor couldn't have taken the photo.  It is clearly a photo taken of an image from a previously-published sources, perhaps a book or newspaper.  Its origins are somewhat problematic for use in a WP:BIO. Shearonink (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree re. the portrait photo. I spent some time going through the on-line archives of both the Tate and IWM looking for a photo of Nevinson but found nothing. I was aware of the image used being available on Commons but didn't add it, because like you, I could not understand how a WW1 era photo could be uploaded in 2015 as 'own work'. The picture has appeared on the cover of the softback edition of CRW Nevinson: This Cult of Violence so it should be possible to determine it's status. I wont have access to a library for a while so I will delete it, at least until then.14GTR (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a shame, but you're right.  I hope you do get access to a photo that can be used on this article, I think a photo of the subject adds quite a bit of interest for the reader. Shearonink (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have tried a few other sites since writing the above and this, [1] from the National Portrait Gallery, looks a possibility but my company laptop won't allow downloads from that site.14GTR (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Job well-done.  Glad you found that additional photograph and did the work to get it uploaded with the licensing all properly delineated. Shearonink (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment. So far everything looks pretty good, but I need to do several more readthroughs to make sure everything is completely up to GA standards. Shearonink (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


### Life information
The article needs more details about Nevinson's personal life - specifically his marriage.  He apparently married a women named Kathleen but the reader knows nothing about her or their marriage, when they were married, anything about her background (her maiden name? her age? did they have children?) and so on.  And the article doesn't mention if he had any siblings - that would be an important part of early life. Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a little bit on the marriage towards the end of the section headed Medical orderly, but yes the article could do with more on his family and married life. I am one week into a four week business trip at the moment, (greetings from Rabat, by the way), so am very limited by both time and available resources as to what I can add, at least until I get home next month.14GTR (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how I missed that.  You're right of course.  I would consider adding additional content as not a requirement for this GA Review but something for a future improvement (like maybe a FA). Shearonink (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


### National Portrait Gallery (UK) photograph
@14GTR: think that the photo is awesome.  I see there is a Creative Commons licensure for the photo but honestly don't know if it is sufficient for usage on Wikipedia.  Can you ask at an appropriate noticeboard or maybe one of the WP image-mavens around here would lend a hand.  I am going to do another deep readthrough but, barring finding any new issues, the possible image is the last bit to be taken care of before I finish my Review. Shearonink (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I have uploaded and added the photo based on the advice given at Christopher R. W. Nevinson photograph in National Portrait Gallery (UK)|ts=03:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)14GTR (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the bibliography and the further reading and the references and the external links all refer to "C. R. W. Nevinson", apart from a few which have the full "Christopher Richard Wynne Nevinson". So why is this article titled "Christopher R. W. Nevinson", for which there is no apparent evidence here, especially if his preferred familiar name was Richard?
I propose the article title and associated links should all change to "C. R. W. Nevinson".
Comments/support/opposition?  Masato.harada (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)