Talk:Stuckism/GA2
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Lapskingwiki in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 11:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
2nd GA review for this, as it seems, I will try to be done with a first assessement later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I put this on hold, but I actually doubt that the problems I have can be dealt with in the matter of 7 days. But first things first:
The biggest problem I have is referencing:
- I have a general problem with many things only being referenced with links to the project's own website.
- You are right that care is needed. Citing a primary source can be a problem when an article is about a living person or a commercial organisation (though even then, such a source can be used with suitable care), but as a do-it-yourself movement the site may reasonably be relied on as a source of information about what the movement claims to be, and with care also the history of and participants in the movement. Equally, it is necessary to supplement this with sources that describe what other people think of the movement. As long as these two things are clear, it is entirely right that the website should be a major source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are right that this might apply to some of the references here. But in some instances, this source is used to prove points that are not the opinion or history of the group, but rather make judgements that I would rely on impartial sources for, like the ref after the sentence helped by press interest in Tracey Emin, who had been nominated for the Turner Prize. If there is press interest, then that should be cited by a press source. Which is no problem, since the stuckism.com Link provided links to a press article that could be used. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've added a ref for Emin as suggested. Some of the other refs sourced to Stuckism.com are actually to other reliable sources (like The Times) but archived there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are right that this might apply to some of the references here. But in some instances, this source is used to prove points that are not the opinion or history of the group, but rather make judgements that I would rely on impartial sources for, like the ref after the sentence helped by press interest in Tracey Emin, who had been nominated for the Turner Prize. If there is press interest, then that should be cited by a press source. Which is no problem, since the stuckism.com Link provided links to a press article that could be used. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are right that care is needed. Citing a primary source can be a problem when an article is about a living person or a commercial organisation (though even then, such a source can be used with suitable care), but as a do-it-yourself movement the site may reasonably be relied on as a source of information about what the movement claims to be, and with care also the history of and participants in the movement. Equally, it is necessary to supplement this with sources that describe what other people think of the movement. As long as these two things are clear, it is entirely right that the website should be a major source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- The whole third paragraph of the lead section lacks refs.
- Done.
- In "Manifestos", the sentence The most contentious statement in the manifesto is lacks a ref to who's opinion that is.
- Done.
- In "Growth in UK" the sentence In August 2005 the Stuckists initiated a major controversy lacks a ref to who calls it a major controversy.
- Done.
- Same problem with the sentence In 2004 outside the launch of The Triumph of Painting at the Saatchi Gallery they wore tall hats with Charles Saatchi's face emblazoned and carried placards claiming that Saatchi had copied their ideas. in "Demonstrations".
- Done.
- And same for the last sentence in the "Europe" section.
- Deleted due to lack of reliable source.
- The biggest issue however is the huge number of dead links, namely refs 15,19,26,27,28,29,30,32,33,38,39,46,48,49,56 and 62. That's a lot of work right there.
- Please note that dead links are not a matter for GA: they may rightly be noted but their presence is not a valid reason to fail an article, nor should their removal be demanded. See Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- That was not how I initially interpreted that instruction, but if it consensus, then I'll leave that out of the assessement. I still feel though that about 50% dead links pose a big question over the article being in compliance with WP:IRS. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Once notable, always notable. The procedure with dead links (outside GA) is defined, and includes looking on archive.org for archived copies of old web pages, among other steps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- That was not how I initially interpreted that instruction, but if it consensus, then I'll leave that out of the assessement. I still feel though that about 50% dead links pose a big question over the article being in compliance with WP:IRS. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that dead links are not a matter for GA: they may rightly be noted but their presence is not a valid reason to fail an article, nor should their removal be demanded. See Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Also, refs 13 and 73 lead to blogs. I would question that they comply with the standards of reliable sources.
- Deleted due to lack of reliable source.
- I don't wish to seem unduly argumentative, but the website LA-Stuckism is a blog only in name; it is simply the website of the Los Angeles Stuckist Group, and the source is valid on their view of Stuckism. (It cannot be assumed to be reliable on any other topic.) The concern with blogs is that anyone may write them; but here we can see that this is written by a splinter group of Stuckists, which makes it of direct interest as a source of what they thought. That they do not agree with other Stuckists (and are not representative of them) means the source must be used with care, rather than rejected out of hand. The same principle will apply to other Stuckist groups. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Point taken. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't wish to seem unduly argumentative, but the website LA-Stuckism is a blog only in name; it is simply the website of the Los Angeles Stuckist Group, and the source is valid on their view of Stuckism. (It cannot be assumed to be reliable on any other topic.) The concern with blogs is that anyone may write them; but here we can see that this is written by a splinter group of Stuckists, which makes it of direct interest as a source of what they thought. That they do not agree with other Stuckists (and are not representative of them) means the source must be used with care, rather than rejected out of hand. The same principle will apply to other Stuckist groups. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Deleted due to lack of reliable source.
Prose: Two things here
- The first sentence of the second lead paragraph (starting Childish and Thompson have issued) is grammatically wrong as far as I can tell.
- So is the following sentence in "Manifestos": The second and third manifestos, respectively An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota and Remodernism, were sent to Nicholas Serota, which letter received a brief reply
Broad coverage I also placed a hold tag here, since I feel that
- You miss to tell the reader who Nicholas Serota is when he is introduced in the "Manifestos" section.
- He is director of the Tate. Done. lapsking (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- More importantly, the "Responses" part is very short and could lead to people assuming a bias. I would expect that a group such as this has more criticism directed at it.
- Extended. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Images The image gallery could use indications which years the pictures are from.
I will give the author(s) seven days to address these issues. If they are unable to do so, I am afraid I will need to fail this article for GA a second time. I hope you will be able to do it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
A major improvement has taken place and since my biggest concern does not seem to have relevance for GAN, I will gladly give this my stamp of approval. Thank you for your good work!
PS: I enjoyed the touch how the article now mentions that someone in the art-world has read it. Nice! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the review! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you everyone, for the review and the improvements. lapsking (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the review! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)