Talk:Hilda Rix Nicholas

GA Review

GA toolbox
Peer review Peer review erratum Dup detector Copyvio detector Disambig links External links

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hilda Rix Nicholas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Ok will review this.......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright - interesting painter. Had not heard of her until coming across this article. I think the choice of paintings is good (one really capturing the Australian light and another from Tangier), maybe get one of the war ones too?

One image added - unfortunately I didn't find an illustration of the three main oils, possibly because at least one was destroyed over half a century ago. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The prose in the lead might be a tad too economical/dense - I like using neat little subordinate clauses but I think the lead might flow better if you massaged a couple of sentences:

e.g. Her father an education administrator, her mother a musician and artist, Rix Nicholas studied under leading member of the Heidelberg School, Frederick McCubbin at the National Gallery of Victoria Art School from 1902 to 1905. - something about this sentence is just a little too busy, yet it strikes me splitting it into two would make two too-short sentences....

Have fiddled - take a look. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Rix children came from a gifted and energetic family. --> " The Rix children grew up in a gifted and energetic family." - "came from" makes me thibk you're going introduce new elements somehow....

Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(known as Merton Hall) --> "(then known as Merton Hall)"?

Actually, it is still known by that name. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Aaah, my bad...those quirky Melburnians....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to know what her mother painted I think,

Added a little on that.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Rix Nicholas twice visited north Africa. In January 1912, Rix Nicholas joined American painter Henry Ossawa Tanner, his wife and a Miss Simpson on a trip to Morocco. - try and avoid using her surname twice in such quick succession

Tweaked. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Align the In Australia painting next to the prose that discusses it?

Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe link nationalism?

Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Link post-modernism at first instance?

I think you mean post-impressionism? It is linked once in the lead, and at the first occurrence in the text that is not part of a quote...hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

d'oh! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

One of hte articles online mentioned a major review in 1971 - worth mentioning in Legacy maybe.

Done, as well as a couple of others. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Any detailed critique on any of her more notable paintings would be good I think to help focus the article more on her art.

I added this... hamiltonstone (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Aaah, that's the icing on the cake and the sort of material that the page was lacking as none of her paintings have articles of their own - the article needed something more on her work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A nice read overall and heading comfortably for GA status......

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - fine article - I tried to be as exacting as I could to give it as big a shove as possible to FAC. I think it is within striking distance. feel free to ask someone to take a look. Will ping. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Superlede

The lede section is FAR too big. Hitler, Churchill and Queen Elizabeth II don't get ledes that big. The lede is meant to be a summary of the main reasons why the subject is notable, and should excite readers to read on. It shouldn't be an only slightly condensed version of the entire article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. I checked WP:LEAD and I don't think it supports either of those points. It says the lead should summarise the article, not only notability, and should be written so that someone reading only the lead will get all the main points. In that page's guide to lead length, it suggests three or four paras for an article of greater than 30,000 characters, which this is (33,000 characters). That said, if you think there's particular content in the lead that, for example, gets undue attention compared to its importance to the subject, I'm happy to hear - i've been working on this closely for a while, so fresh eyes can help! hamiltonstone (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Headings hierarchy for references / bibliography

Wow, Wikipedia articles have talk pages for discussing issues with articles! Who knew? So, there has been some edit warring over the heading structure for the bibliography / references in this article. The article references are structured such that Harvard-style references are used in the endnotes, followed by a list of sources to which the cites refer. These were organised with a level 2 heading "References" under which the notes occur under a level 3 heading "notes" and the full citations under a level 3 heading "bibliography". Editor Omnipaedista has sought to change this structure. With his first edit on this, he sought to change the bibliography to a second-level heading "further reading", which was clearly incorrect and reverted by Gerda Arendt. With his next edit, Omni changed it to a second-level heading, titled "works cited". This at least was a correct description of the list, but still broke the heading structure, because it moved the heading out from under the references heading, where it belonged. Editor RexxS reverted the change in heading hierarchy, but kept Omni's change in wording. then another editor, JonasVinther, came along and changed the words to "sources". Omni again changed the level to level 2, citing WP:APPENDIX in his edit summary. Gerda reverted, saying the two subsections should remain part of the "references" section. Omni again changed back to level two, and in his edit summary said "(the "works cited/sources" section is considered a separate section wikiwide, not a subsection of "citations/references")".

I have reviewed WP:APPENDIX. It does not provide guidance on the heading hierarchy, but does provide a range of suggestions over the words that can be used to describe the different kinds of lists. It is not correct that subsections are considered separate "wikiwide". Take a look at Dick Turpin, Hoxne Hoard or Pope_Paul_III_and_His_Grandsons, all of them FAs. Other FA articles, such as Phan Đình Phùng, Norman conquest of England, Windsor Castle or Caspar David Friedrich do use the section level headings. Then there are those FAs such as Lincoln cent which do mistakenly use the term "further reading" when they should not (regardless of what heading level one thinks they should have). My own view is that using section level headings for both footnotes and for the references they cite is conceptually incorrect, as it fails to do what a heading hierarchy is for: grouping concepts according to those things they are similar to, and separate from those from which they are distinct. Nevertheless, I'm happy to only exercise that view in those articles where there isn't a stable and settled approach. Omni, can we agree that there is not a wikiwide approach, and therefore that the structure that was in this article when it was promoted as an FA can be retained? hamiltonstone (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion took place on Gerda's talk page before my last edit. I sought to change the bibliography to a different section name because "bibliography" is ambiguous in biographical articles. Gerda correctly pointed out that I gave it a wrong title. This matter was solved. Regarding hierarchy: as I said on Gerda's page the "works cited/sources" section is considered a separate section wikiwide (as opposed to subsection of "citations/references") and (apart from very few exceptions) is marked as a level 2 heading. The only other way is to have a level 2 heading called "Notes and references" and have two level 3 headings called "Notes" and "References", respectively, below it. This Wikipedia convention reflects the convention employed in most printed academic publications according to which the last two sections of an article/book are called "Citations/references" and "Works cited", respectively. WP:APPENDIX says "optional standard appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with ==level 2 headings==". The alternative practice (two level 3 headings) exists but it is not standard. To sum it up, I would agree to either having two level 2 headings or two level 3 headings, but I would not agree to having one level 2 heading and one level 3 heading. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't wikiwide - i sampled about 10 FAs and found a third of them followed the pattern i followed in this article. Apart from that, I'm a bit puzzled, because there were two level three headings, and that is what you changed. I don't think the WP:APPENDIX guidance is relevant because it is talking about different section types, it isn't directed at the structuring of the sources themselves, and when it does talk about them it explicitly envisages that people may use subsections. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I could cite several thousands of articles employing the two practices I am describing (either having two level 2 headings or two level 3 headings). The few FAs you cited are no exceptions to standard practice. "There were two level three headings" — nope, this is false. This is my initial edit. I am not sure where our disagreement is. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

When I say "two level three headings" I mean having a level 2 heading called "Notes and references" and have two level 3 headings called "Notes" and "References", respectively, below it. This is the standard practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I had intended that the article followed the practice of Hoxne Hoard etc (and Muckaty Station, which I also wrote) I don't know why i didn't have that first level 3 heading in place. Actually it did used to have the two headings - don't know at what point that got lost. The first level three heading was removed in literally the last edit before you came in. Will fix. Ta, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we have that sorted out. What do you think of that version? (I employed the term "notes" for explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed to be in the body of the article, the term "citations" for citation footnotes, and the term "sources" for full citations to sources.) --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That's better than before, thank you, i like having all three in the one section. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)