Talk:Vanitas: Flesh Dress for an Albino Anorectic/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 22:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I will give this a try, soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

review

• I think the two "exhibition sections should be combined into one.
• "Controversies" should not be a subsection but a section of its own, since its the body of the article.

(will continue)

• I think the article needs to be reorganized. Suggestions:

History (Parallels)

Description

Exibition

Critical reaction

Controversy

MathewTownsend (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've agreed with the Controvery section, even though all the controversy was during the one showing, not the earlier or later exhibits. (There are Facebook complaints to the Walker Art Center when they collected it, but that doesn't count.) As the parallels section was so short, I've merged it description, as opposed to simply renaming it history.

While there are some PDFs of newspaper articles on my hard drive, that I haven't gone through, I really don't remember any critical reviews of the piece, anywhere. In retrospect, perhaps I should have intralibrary loaned Nemiroff's catalog, but it will most likely be favourable, and nothing to counterbalance it. (Canadian Art magazine would have a review, likely, but only the Art Gallery of Ontario archives the magazine, and I just can't work with their schedule.) Basically all the coverage was news reports of "he said, she said", and occasional trivial agreements to statements by columnists, but not actual art critics.

What's your opinion on the changes so far? Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd note, the critical reviews listed at the end of the controversy section are either of clothing issues or Sterbak in general, as opposed to this particular work.

Perhaps "Reception" is a better term to broadly collection both (indirect) formal critical reaction and controversy? -- Zanimum (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

reply

• I like the changes so far. Very good. Only one small problem: in the "Exhibition" section, it says in the first para that her first exhibit received "scant" attention. Then it says the retrospective "was relatively well-attended, compared to other shows, thanks to the controversy." The problem is the "controversy" isn't described until the next section "Controversy". Is there a way you can resolve this so that the reader knows about the controversy before you mention her retrospective show? Otherwise, excellent! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Regarding you second question, I'm not sure. Can you tie this work to her work in general and then the comments could refer to them all? They all have similar themes, according to the article on her. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Please feel free to alter any incorrect edits I made.[1]
• Very nice. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)