Talk:Caspar David Friedrich

message: This book from "Delphi Classics" plagiarizes this article. I don't know if this is a legit publisher? Probably not. I think there's talk page template for this kind of thing. 02:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  book copied article 

message: An editor has twice tried to change Friedrich from German to Swedish-German. I had initially warned him here against using deceptive edit summaries (a POV edit labeled as a "typo"). The discussion, as you can see, escalated quickly. My main point is that virtually all reliable sources label Friedrich as German. I won't list every source as there are literally thousands, but I will give you this one obscure compendium to consider: . As you can see, a "German painter" born in "Greifswald, Germany". I don't believe we need to belabour this further as this is a featured article and there has been no controversy around Friedrich's ethnicity before this. As we all know, we go by sources, not personal opinions. The sources unequivocally label Friedrich German. freshacconci (✉) 00:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation might be similar to that of Francis Bacon (artist) ("Irish-born British" after lots of arguments) except that his place of birth, though Swedish-ruled, was definitely not considered part of Sweden, any more than eg Venice and Milan were considered part of Austria some time later. So he just needs to be reverted. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: I reviewed this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review English Wikipedia's oldest featured articles to ensure that they still meet the featured article criteria. I have some concerns about this article after a quick scan:
*There are some unreferenced passages throughout the article,
*The "Sources" section lists numerous sources that are not used as inline citations in the article, which makes me wonder if the article is comprehensive,
*The references are disorganised, with some needing to be moved to a "Notes" section, a standardisation of how references are used, and some sources that might be able to be replaced with higher quality academic sources.
Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Pinging  as the FA nominators who are still actively editing. Z1720 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: yes agree it needs a tuneup. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you think you will work on this in the near future? I added it to WP:FARGIVEN but I have lots of articles on my list of FAR-ing so I don't want to bring an article to FAR if others want to work on it. I do not have the expertise to work on this. Z1720 (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: hi, yes would be pleased to return to this page, although will be travelling for a bit. Ceoil (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No rush to get this done. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and phew! Z1720. I'm comfortable with this, and have made progress on the refs. Re "numerous sources that are not used", I'm fine that it doesn't indicate a gap in comprehensive; the article follows TOC wise the broad format of general surveys. Unused sources now moved to further reading. Have added a notes section, and am half way through converting harv to snf (tiresome work). Have removed a few uncited additions. Will ping when done overall and you can re-assess. Realistically, I'll ping you in a month. Ceoil (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of progress made, so....<ahem> Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:URFA/2020]] review