Talk:Marriage License/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dibsing, ping if I don't finish within a week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in excellent shape to begin with so this is mostly nitpicking.

"created for the cover of The Saturday Evening Post on June 11, 1955." - slightly ambiguous, implies it was created on June 11, 1955
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Stockbridge native needs a hyphen
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since Mahoney is a bluelink (and was an NBA player when the painting was created), could we get a touch of context for him in the lead and when he's first mentioned in the text?
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know anything about the commission for the painting? Did it accompany a specific article about marriage or was it just a random civic scene?
- Nothing I have seen comments on the commission --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence starting with "For their photo shoot" could use a bit of revising
- The couple weren't wearing the dress, so "told the couple to wear an exact yellow dress" isn't quite right
- "Exact" as an adjective for the dress feels odd. Sub "specific" instead maybe?
- Do we know why Rockwell wanted that particular dress? Did he design it himself? Did he pay for it?
  - Made some improvements based on the sources. None of them offer much more explanation --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above sentence and the next both start with "for", I wouldn't fail the GA over it but as a style nitpick it's slightly repetitive
- Added a buffer --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nitpick, but the office is filled with bookshelves, not the city hall. Reorganize slightly?
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In front of a tall desk stands" - I don't know the technical term for this but this clause feels out of order. "A young man and woman stand in front of a tall desk...etc etc" feels more natural
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, "has his arm protectively around" would feel more natural
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two sentences in succession start with "behind"
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd that the only thing given any interpretation is the American flag. Is there any other extant analysis of the painting? What about it implies mean they came in at the end of the day?
- None of the other sources discuss it --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Museum names don't get italicized
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know why Buechner picked it as one of Rockwell's best?
- No --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"painting writing" needs a comma between
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It feels odd that it's apparently been widely-praised but we only cite 3 reviews. Is that all there is, or are we being selective? If we're being selective, why these 3 in specific? Does the Fort Worth journalist focus on art? Is Chris Finch a significant pop-art historian?
- I did a refresh of this section --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"License depicting" also needs a comma between, I think
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It was released" feels like an odd way to describe a Mad parody, especially one that was originally created in 2004. "It was re-posted" perhaps
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's it. Mostly nitpicking as I said. No rush on responses. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Can you take another look? -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All looking sharp! Easy pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.