Talk:Isaac Sailmaker

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Isaac Sailmaker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 16:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I'll be reviewing this article using the table below. Comments to follow shortly. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 16:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125 Review is now completed, only minor comments. It's a great article and an interesting read, thank you for all your work on it :) Do let me know if you have any questions. I'll put the article on hold now. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 19:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

Some suggestions are below. I'll do a final check at the end of the review.

Just made a few small fixes.

Lead

  • All good.

Life

  • The section starts by calling him Sailmaker, in the second paragraph refers to him as Zeilmaker, then in the third paragraph goes back to Sailmaker. Is there a source which explains that he changed his name? That would make the transition a lot smoother I think.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe wikilink soubriquet?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like detail about the advertisement for GLORIA Britanniae could go in the Artistic style section of the article instead. Because it directly describes one of Sailmaker's works, it feels like that would be a better place than in the Life section. It would also expand the currently quite short Life section. Let me know what you think.
Agreed, done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of his life, Sailmaker was living in a house aong King's Bench Walk Typo here.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic style

  • All good.

Attributions

  • Sailmaker was once the best known of the English painters to emerged at the end of the 17th century. Typo here.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

  • All good.


1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Lead sections

  • Could possibly add in a bit extra detail about any notable paintings, commissioners (e.g. Cromwell), and the difficulty in attributing paintings to him.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

  • Layout is good, just see note above about whether to move detail on GLORIA Britanniae into the Artistic style section.

Words to watch

  • Sailmaker was once the best known of the English painters to emerged at the end of the 17th century. I think this statement would be improved if we could specify when Sailmaker was one of the best known English painters to have emerged in the 17th century.
Mmmm, looking at this again, it's unclear exactly what Archibald meant, and there's nothing i could find to suggest that Sailmaker was ever at all well known, so I've removed the statement. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction

  • N/A

List incorporation N/A


2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Citations and sources are in the appropriate places.


2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).

Source check

Netherlands Institute for Art History

  • checkY

Cordingly, D. (1972)

  • Sailmaker was commissioned by Cromwell to paint the English fleet at Fort-Mardyck, depicting its capture by an Anglo-French force in September 1657. I can't find detail about the capture by an Anglo-French force in the source. Is this a well-known historical incident?
See here, where there is some information about this little-known episode, and here for a broadsheet in the British Museum. I'll add a note, as there's currently little else to link to in Wikipedia. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waterhouse, E.K.; Kitson, M. (1994)

  • Looking at the source: ... Vertue was told by the veteran painter Isaac Sailmaker (1633-1721) that Lely 'wrought for Geldorp in his house' on his first coming over and that the young Sailmaker was employed there also. I might be struggling with the language here, just wanted to check whether this means that Geldorp was Sailmaker's teacher?
Yes, this is what historians have taken the text to mean. I've added an other citation and amended the text to hopefully make this clear to other readers. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Museums Greenwich

  • checkY

Archibald 1982

  • checkY

Arber 1965

  • checkY

Daniel Hunt Fine Art

  • checkY

Cordingly 1997

  • checkY

Department of Digital, Culture, Media & Sport * Can't find detail in the source to back up: Paintings attributed to Sailmaker include ship portraits and depictions of various naval actions, such as the Battle of Málaga (1704).

I've removed the battle (my error), but, searching, found more about his painting of the battle, and will add it elsewhere. Source amended for the sake of clarity. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research.
  • Statements are appropriately sourced. Just see few comments above regarding whether some sources contain relevant information.


2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Copyvio brings up nothing of concern and happy with spot-checks.


3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • The article covers what is known of Sailmaker's life, notable works, and legacy.


3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • The article stays focussed on topic.


4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Content is presented neutrally.


5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Most recent changes are by nominator and are constructive.


6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • Images are PD.


6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Not sure if Gloucester in the HMS Gloucester picture should be un-italicised?
Removed, as similar captions don't have them. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictures have suitable captions and alt descriptions (always great to see :) ).


7. Overall assessment.
@Unexpectedlydian: All comments addressed now. I have added some more information, found when working on the review—the article text has been amended as a result. Thanks for the detailed comments, which I found very useful. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Amitchell125:, thank you for addressing these comments so quickly. I also like the additional details you've added to the article. This is good to go as a GA, well done! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 10:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]