Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rembrandt/1

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept. Hog Farm _Talk 18:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited prose in the article, including entire paragraphs and an orange "more citations needed" orange banner at the top of "The Night Watch" section. There are also some unreliable sources used in the article like IMDB; with the extensive amount of literature written about him, I think it would be a good idea to replace some of these website sources with higher-quality publications, but at least remove the unreliable ones. Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I have time, though as I said in the other section (where is that now??), the ARTICLE IS CERTAINLY far BETTER than when it passed GA. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, that's on Talk:Rembrandt.

Z1720, far be it from me to take over from Johnbod on a history of art topic, but something does need to be said here. The article is indeed of good quality; the letter-of-the-law approach is seen in an instance like this - a really nice article, well-constructed, well-illustrated, well-written, and almost completely cited - to be about to give the wrong answer, viz., a few refs could be added so it's not a GA, bang. That really isn't a particularly forgiving approach, or to put it another way, the (at random?) choice of this article seems especially unfortunate and inappropriate. If this gets towards a timeout, then let me know (either of you) and I'll add the needed refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I should get round to it, but by all means add to it, refs especially, if you can. Presumably the The Night Watch article has refs, which I haven't explored yet. I do have books on R though. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see The Night Watch is oddly thin on the content of the painting itself, which it would be good to expand on. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap and Johnbod: When reviewing articles for GA status, the article is reviewed based on its current version, not how much it has improved from before. It is also reviewed based on what the GA criteria are today. If there are concerns about how I review articles, editors can post them on the GA talk page. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we may need to do that, again. The point is not what the letter of the criteria say, we can read, but what the proper interpretation should be on the balance of all the facts in a situation, which are not limited to CN tags, nor should those be considered specially important. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, Keep, for the reasons stated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added citation needed tags, and the orange banner on top of the "The Night Watch" section still needs to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• That's frankly a misunderstanding: not helpful and not necessary, I can see the gaps for myself and so can Johnbod, and that section is the one place where we all agree things should be improved. What we don't agree is that such a thing demands a GAR: on that we differ fundamentally, and splashing CN tags about won't help resolve that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, I've done a little tidying, reffed all the obvious places, and a basic rewrite of The Night Watch. There was only one passing mention of IMDB (on the back of another ref, about publicity for an exhibition): I've removed it - really not worth flagging up. Johnbod can certainly do better but for the immediate purpose here that should be enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Great - I hope will do more later, but all the issues raised above are sorted. Many thanks, So, Keep. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your hard work. There's one citation needed template to resolve before I can recommend a keep. It is for the sentence that starts with, "Also notable are his dramatic and lively presentation of subjects". Once resolved, editors can ping me and I'll take another look. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; I removed the one unreliable source I saw since it already had another cite. charlotte ^👸♥ 00:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems good now - but really we ought to find material for a 4th para to the lead. Probably on his style. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]