# Talk:Scottish art in the nineteenth century

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scottish art in the nineteenth century/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Erachima (talk · contribs) 14:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Review criteria, in no particular order:


### Use of Images
Free licenses everywhere, so nothing much to check there. Three points I'd like answered though.

The Portraiture section mentions specific aspects of a portrait of Principal Lee, but does not feature that image. Is an illustrative version of that portrait available in PD?
Not available on the commons, but I could upload that image as it is in the public domain.--SabreBD (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason that Arts and Crafts lacks an illustration when every similar section has one?
Yes, its is because the section is much shorter.--SabreBD (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to consistently see dates of creation in the captions. At the moment it's spotty.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC).


### Stability of Content
For most intents, this is a single-author article. No stability concerns.


### Focus of Coverage
Lengthy without being endless, appears to be a solid overview. I see only one possible issue here.

The section "Influence of the Nazarenes and Pre-Raphaelites" seems slightly lengthy relative to the remainder of the article. It also bears a very obtrusive section header. Can either of these be changed?
I have edited this down a bit. Not sure how to be less obtrusive. It is at least accurate, but I am open to suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


### Verifiability of Assertions
The paradox of verifiability in articles which rely on books is that they have authoritative sources but are much harder to source-check. That said, spot checks are coming up clean and I don't see any absurd claims, so I'm comfortable with this.


### Quality of Writing
Prose quality has some issues, mainly in the form of meandering and confusing grammar. I'll only be hitting the major points I see here, you may wish to get someone else to give it more thorough copyediting after the GA process. You've got a particular issue with run-on sentences.

"Scottish art in the nineteenth century is the body of visual art made in Scotland, by Scots, or about Scottish subjects, in the nineteenth century." is really stilted. Consider "Scottish art in the nineteenth century encompassed visual art made in Scotland, by Scots, and about Scottish subjects." or similar phrasing.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"Photography was pioneered in Scotland by Robert Adamson and David Octavius Hill, who as Hill & Adamson, formed the first photographic studio in Scotland in 1843 and whose work is some of the first and finest artistic uses of photography." is a somewhat confusing run-on sentence.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Likewise "In the late nineteenth century developments in Scottish art are associated with the Glasgow School, a number of loose groups including the Glasgow Boys, who included James Guthrie, Joseph Crawhall, George Henry and E. A. Walton, who were influenced by French Impressionism and Realism."
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The first paragraph of "Institutes and education" is confusing. Please prioritize correcting this.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"Other figures to pursue their careers largely in portraiture based in Glasgow included Daniel Macnee (1806–82), who only moved to Edinburgh after his election of President of the Academy in 1876." is ambiguous. What does "based in Glasgow" modify?
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
End of the Portraiture section has several typos. "form" (meant "from" but should likely be "of") and "succeeding" popped out, there may be others.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"After a tour of Europe Wilkie was more influenced by Renaissance and Baroque painting." is no way to start a new section. Please rearrange this paragraph.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
So, nearly there. This article is on hold pending responses. --erachima talk 14:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Since there have been no edits to either the page or this review page in the last week, I'm failing the nomination for inactivity. --erachima talk 01:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done as far as I can. There are a couple of issues to consider.--SabreBD (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scottish art in the nineteenth century/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
No copyvios, and the previous GA review addressed all of the issues with the prose.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
This source does not support the following sentence it is attached to - "It became the Government School of Art in 1858." Citation 15 is a dead link. The book sources I'm accepting AGF. Because of the error I found above with a citation not supporting the sentence it's attached to, I'd encourage you to double-check the article's references. No original research is present.
Y Resolved.--¿3family6 contribs 04:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Broad in its coverage, yet does not stray into extraneous material irrelevant to the article subject.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
No bias detected.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Stable, mostly single-author article.
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): 
Licensing checks out, there was one image that lacked a US-specific permission tag, but I corrected that (sometime I need to spend a few days on commons and deal with this issue. It keeps showing up on these GA reviews.) Like the previous review indicated, it would be very beneficial to the article to have Principal Lee depicted, but the lack of that image will not keep this article from GA status
Overall: Almost there, just a couple citation difficulties that I highlighted above.--¿3family6 contribs 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Y Citation issues resolved, article is good to go.--¿3family6 contribs 04:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Pass/Fail: 

Hi. Thanks for taking this on. Its probably evident from the history, but this article was reviewed before. Despite the time out on the hold caused by Legbot having a bad weekend, the reviewer agreed to pass the article if it was completed, which it was, but he did not get back to it. It doesn't really have any impact on this review, but I thought I would clarify.--SabreBD (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that review. I will tackle this article shortly, either tonight or tomorrow. The previous review does have an impact, as I can check the current article against the issues that the previous review found. Hopefully, this article will pass muster. I enjoy working on these articles with you, by the way, Sabrebd.--¿3family6 contribs 19:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks 3family6, look forward to it.--SabreBD (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I fixed the two citation problems. One caused by borrowing text from elsewhere I think. I cannot remember what the problem was with putting up Principle Leah, so I will have to recheck that one. I have a feeling I did find a version of this that could be used.--SabreBD (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The citation issues are resolved, so I can move this article forward. The lack of a depiction of Principal Lee does not affect the GA status at all, so feel free to take your time on that. Approved.--¿3family6 contribs 04:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks 3family6 (and to Erachima for the previous work). I will take a look at Principal Lee when I get some time. All the best.--SabreBD (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)