Talk:Bliss (photograph)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 23:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Actuall7 (talk · contribs) 08:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to review this article. Creating this page in advance. Actuall7 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see that you are a newer reviewer, so if you happen to have any questions during the review, feel free to ask me. Considering that archive.org is still down, the interview Microsoft did with O'Rear back in 2014 is up on YouTube: [1]. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll start the review soon. Actuall7 (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Initial checks
[edit]- Earwig gives a 64.3% violation possibility, but most of it is quotes from this source [2].
- All images are fine and licensed.
Lead
[edit]- Terms like Microsoft, Fujifilm, and Bill Gates should be wikilinked as this is the first mention of them.
- Done
- "The software company re-used" -> this sentence feels a bit strange when being used to refer to Microsoft, maybe just say Microsoft?
- Done
- "the rolling hill returning to being a vineyard." -> this sentence is confusing as it isn't mentioned previously that it was a former vineyard.
- Done Added a mention.
Overview
[edit]- "lush green rolling hill and cirrus clouds" should be with -> "lush green rolling hill with cirrus clouds"
- Done
- There should be a fullstop on the image of O'Rear as it is a sentence.
- Done
- Should the link for St. Helena, California, include California in the link?
- Done No, California falls under a common word.
- Additionally, California is also linked in the infobox.
- Done No, California falls under a common word.
- "have had the identical result" -> "have had an identical result"
- Done
History
[edit]- "also based in Seattle" -> Seattle isn't previously mentioned so I'm unsure why it says also.
- Done
- "was also considered the default wallpaper" -> "was also considered to be the default wallpaper"
- Done
- "but was changed due to testers comparing it to buttocks." -> this source used [3], doesn't seem very reliable to show that testers said this as it references a different Wikipedia.
- That part is quoted to Raymond Chen (ref 22).
- I see, but is ref 23 reliable?
- Yes it is. See VG/RS.
- Thanks for confirming.
- Yes it is. See VG/RS.
- I see, but is ref 23 reliable?
- That part is quoted to Raymond Chen (ref 22).
- "default wallpaper but to buy" -> "default wallpaper, but to buy"
- Done
- "plane ticket, and he personally" -> remove comma.
- Done
- "the default wallpaper of the" -> wallpaper is linked here despite being mentioned earlier in the same section at "the default wallpaper, but was".
- Done
- In the quote, Half Dome should be linked.
- Done
I'll continue this later. Actuall7 (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing everything, continuing the review. Actuall7 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Reception
[edit]- Why does Digital Camera World link to Future US? Digital Camera World isn't even mentioned in the Future US article.
- I'm unsure why they are missing from that article that but they are owned by Future US (see here). They've been also publishing a magazine for a long time now.
- I see, thanks for confirming.
- I'm unsure why they are missing from that article that but they are owned by Future US (see here). They've been also publishing a magazine for a long time now.
- Other than that, no other issues.
Legacy
[edit]- "journalists speculated it might" -> "journalists speculated that it might"
- Done
- As ref 13 is also by Napa Valley Register, it should also have the subscription needed tag, similar to ref 3.
- Done
- The second paragraph in the Legacy section feels more like it should be in Reception as it talks about the popularity of the photograph.
- Done
- "Microsoft would contact him" -> "Microsoft would have contacted him"
- Done
Re-creations
[edit]- Should the Goldin+Senneby photo be moved to the Re-creations section as this is where its first mentioned? It can be left at the Legacy section is you think it shouldn't.
- Done Yup.
- "Aero in Windows Vista, and also" -> remove comma.
- Done
- Should list of photographs considered the most important be linked in the See also section?
- If this photograph was not considered by some to be the most viewed in history, then I do not think that the inclusion would be justified. But because of it, I think it should stay as the article contains well-known (and important) photographs.
- I see, thanks for explaining.
- If this photograph was not considered by some to be the most viewed in history, then I do not think that the inclusion would be justified. But because of it, I think it should stay as the article contains well-known (and important) photographs.
References
[edit]- Ref 1 and Ref 29 should have the subscription needed tag.
- Done
- Ref 3a states that the photo was taken in 1998, Ref 4 states that the photo was taken in 1998, and Ref 5 states that the photo was taken in 1996, so I'm not sure the proper date of the photo.
- The year is definitely inconsistent among sources, 1996 and 1998 are the two years mentioned. However, in the 2023 interview O'Rear talked about how he took the photograph 25 years ago, which corresponds to the year 1998. This is the best indication we have that it was taken in 1998 (in most sources O'Rear only talked about taking the photograph in January).
- I see, this does make 1998 the more likely year.
- The year is definitely inconsistent among sources, 1996 and 1998 are the two years mentioned. However, in the 2023 interview O'Rear talked about how he took the photograph 25 years ago, which corresponds to the year 1998. This is the best indication we have that it was taken in 1998 (in most sources O'Rear only talked about taking the photograph in January).
- Should Ref 14 use a ProQuest id instead of ISSN?
- Done
That's all the issues that I can see, good work on the article. Actuall7 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. All done. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing everything, I hope I gave you an adequate review. Passing the article. Actuall7 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)