# Talk:Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II – An 80th Birthday Portrait

This review is transcluded from Talk:Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II – An 80th Birthday Portrait/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The C of E (talk · contribs) 07:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gareth E. Kegg: An interesting read though I do feel there is a bit of work needed for it to become a GA.

Per MOS:INTRO the intro should be a summary. In my view, the current one is too long and appears to be the same length as the rest of the article. It needs to be broken up with some of the paragraphs possibly becoming their own sections.
What sort of painting is it? oil on canvass, watercolour? That needs to be mentioned in the lead
The praise and criticism is mentioned in the lead but not elsewhere in the article.
Also who called it amateurish?
The image could go into an infobox, Template:Infobox artwork is good for this.
There should be an explanation of why Harris was chosen to paint HM, as well as a bit of background on Harris' artistic experience
I don't think its necessarily correct to call Harris an artist in the lead as he was more primarily known as an entertainer.
Per MOS:JOBTITLES, references to HM should be "the Queen", not "Elizabeth" for consistency as you're using both in the article
Is there a reason and a source as to why the National Portrait Gallery rejected it?
It should be made clearer that the location is unknown since Harris' arrest, the article currently seems to go around the houses to tell readers that.
With the sources, only print media should be in italics, BBC and ABC etc can be in normal.
These issues defiantly prevent promotion at this time, with the large lead being mostly problematic. Once these have been sorted, ping me and i'll have another look.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@The C of E: I've made your suggested changes, many thanks.

Per MOS:INTRO the intro should be a summary. In my view, the current one is too long and appears to be the same length as the rest of the article. It needs to be broken up with some of the paragraphs possibly becoming their own sections.
Done.
What sort of painting is it? oil on canvass, watercolour? That needs to be mentioned in the lead
Done.
The praise and criticism is mentioned in the lead but not elsewhere in the article.
Separated into critical reception section.
Also who called it amateurish?
I'm not sure. ES just says that "critics described it as amateurish". I've removed it.
The image could go into an infobox, Template:Infobox artwork is good for this.
Done.
There should be an explanation of why Harris was chosen to paint HM, as well as a bit of background on Harris' artistic experience
Done.
I don't think its necessarily correct to call Harris an artist in the lead as he was more primarily known as an entertainer.
I've changed it to artist and entertainer as he was a well established commercial artist at the time.
Per MOS:JOBTITLES, references to HM should be "the Queen", not "Elizabeth" for consistency as you're using both in the article
Done.
Is there a reason and a source as to why the National Portrait Gallery rejected it?
No, just the BBC article saying they did.
It should be made clearer that the location is unknown since Harris' arrest, the article currently seems to go around the houses to tell readers that.
I put it's unknown location into lead.
With the sources, only print media should be in italics, BBC and ABC etc can be in normal.
I think the cite template automatically italicises them. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks much better now. Happy to pass this for GA now. Well done.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)