Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Han van Meegeren

Han van Meegeren

I just stumbled across this article, which at this point is mostly based on the equivalent German article. I haven't edited it yet, but thought I'd attempt to at least get this to GA. Right off the bat, what I could do:

1. Shorten the lead.
2. Add inline citations (although some statements are cited with text and could potentially be converted into standard footnotes).
3. Use more English references instead of the German-language works that are currently listed. (To make verification easier)

but other than that... suggestions? Quarma 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

The currect form of the article is a good basis for an excellent article. You have realized most of the existing problems of the current article. These are some additional remarks:

• The lead must indeed get shorter, but you should also imrove its format. Don't keep the current stubby pars. Create a consize lead with 2-3 middle-sized pars.
• "(or “knight’s hall” see: Binnenhof)". I think it is not nice to link other wikiarticles like that. Try to incorporate such links in the prose. Maybe something like that: met weekly in the Ridderzaal.
• Try to have the citations at the end of the sentences. I know, of course, that this is not always possible.
• "Artistic development": You could divide this section in two sub-sections, like "Early years" and "Career as a painter". But this is just a proposal.
• When you quote, you don't have to use italics. Quotation marks are OK.
• "The confession". The first word of a heading is recommended not to be an article. Thus, "confession" instead of "the confession" is recommended. In this particular section is "confession" an accurate title? Does it cover the content of both sub-sections?
• "Million today[1]." Inline citations go after the punctuation. This is thus the correct: "Million today.[1]"
• "Han van Meegeren remains one of the most ingenious art counterfeiters of the 20th century." You definitely have to cite this claim. And I think that you could expand a bit "legacy" with some more infos. Maybe something more about his art in this or another sections. All the focus is on his forgery talent!
• "Retrospective exhibitions in museums": I'm not sure this should be a seperate article. And do you think the mentioning of all these exhibitions is necessary?
• In Refs, some books are in qms (Falsification and Research (1976) "Museum Folkwang, Essen and Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin".); some others in italics (Bailey, Anthony (2002). Vermeer. Berlin: Siedler Verlag). Consistency needed.
• Your references are they all cited?
• The names of the books's writers etc. should also be mentioned with consistency. I see "Guarnieri, Luigi" but also "Peter Greenaway" and "Marijke van Brandhof".
• "This article was translated into English from the German Wikipedia article of the same name." This should leave, of course, after you complete your re-writing.
• After the your effort is completed, you could always ask another native English speaker to take a look at the prose. It looks fine to me, but I'm not the best judge of prose!--Yannismarou 18:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)