Talk:Composition with Red, Blue and Yellow
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Rusalkii in topic Rewrite
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
This looks like a school project
edit- This article is not encyclopaedic in tone, and the structure is fairly disorganized. Furthermore, this article is full of personal opinion, which unless cited from a reputable source has no place here. While I do not not possess the necessary expertise to do so, I am recommending a full rewrite. Deelay58 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I second that. In addition, a very large part of the article is about Mondrian, De Stijl, etc. and thus off topic. Mondrian's development should not be repeated again and again for every article about one of his paintings. Superp (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- In addition, the image included in the article is of a painting in the Kunsthaus Zürich, not the National Museum of Serbia. The latter holds another Mondrian though. Superp (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I second everything said. Would it be fine if I at least change the year to 1930 and the reference link URL to https://kunsthaus.ch/ ? I am kind of a newbie here. EzequielBirman (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- In addition, the image included in the article is of a painting in the Kunsthaus Zürich, not the National Museum of Serbia. The latter holds another Mondrian though. Superp (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I second that. In addition, a very large part of the article is about Mondrian, De Stijl, etc. and thus off topic. Mondrian's development should not be repeated again and again for every article about one of his paintings. Superp (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
What about the painting?
editThe last three fourths of the article are about Mondrian and De Stijl. Is there anything else that can be written about the painting itself?
Rewrite
editI removed essentially the whole article. I was planning to rewrite it in an encyclopaedic tone, but it became pointless to attempt it. Most of the text was not about the painting at all, and the text that was, was simply someone's personal opinion. It would be nice to have a decent article about this painting, but the previous text was completely unsalvageable. Nevgerid (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- The one thing I thought about keeping, a mention of the De Stijl movement, is cited to a source which may once have been reliable but is now a spam site supposedly selling steroids. Nevgerid (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- On a more careful reading of the content you removed, I realized that I'd overgeneralized from that first sentence being useful. I now agree with you that it was otherwise entirely unencyclopedic; sorry for the hasty revert. A better source for De Stijl might be here. Rusalkii (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)