Talk:Thomas Carlyle (Millais)

Thomas Carlyle (Millais) was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 19, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Carlyle (Millais)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: Sinopecynic (talk · contribs) at 20:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments[edit]

I am afraid, but I'll have to quick-fail the article due to multiple reasons:

Recommending to have the GOCE copy-edit the article. The prose does not meet the criteria of being "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct". We have many phrases which are unclear/difficult to understand. Example: "It may have been one Mrs. Anstruther, a friend of Carlyle's who visited Millais' home to see the portrait, telling him that it was ...", etc. There are a lot of blockquotes and other long quotations, some of which can easily be paraphrased in Wikipedia's voice.
It has quite a few MOS issues. MOS:LEAD states that the lead section should be a summary of the article. We have a single sentenced lead that is never mentioned in the prose. We have MOS:SANDWICH issues, etc.
Few of the direct quotations and text lacks a citation, when direct quotations should definitely have one. Few of the references lack an url-access date.

Overall, it will take a long time, or even a complete re-write of the article to fix these issues. So I am failing the nomination for now, but suggest you to keep working on these issues, and do renominate after they have been fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion[edit]

Hi! I'll review this article as a part of the June 2022 backlog drive. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or need clarification for any point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]