A fact from The Funeral of the Anarchist Galli appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is related to the Museum of Modern Art.Museum of Modern ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Museum of Modern ArtTemplate:WikiProject Museum of Modern ArtMuseum of Modern Art-related articles
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.
As is my usual methodology, I'll go through and make any minor prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If you object to any of my changes, just let me know here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
The first sentence under 'Description' says that the piece contains elements of Cubism, but the given source doesn't quite say that, instead mentioning a possible influence and noting that contemporary Futurists saw it as being opposed to Cubism. Also, having 'dynamism' in that list is a little odd, giving the impression it is an artistic movement, and not just a regular description. cleaned up
I moved the History section above the Description section, since it provides useful context that helps the reader understand what is described.
What did Kassak have to say about the piece? The inclusion of the sentence is a little odd if we don't give any detail of what he thought or what influence it had on him/Hungary. Done
Made some final prose tweaks to the new material. Pass on prose.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Pass, no issues.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
In Source #1, McKever, no need for all caps
Source #6, Carra, is malformed - no need for the "|" characters, the ISBN should be dashed and linked, etc. I recommend creating it elsewhere in the text (outside the blockquote) in VisualEditor, switching to source mode editing, and then copying/pasting the resulting source-code-reference into the blockquote template.
Source #9 the original link 404s... see if you can find a replacement that's working; if not, tag it as a dead link. The archive link is good.
Source #9, no need for all caps
Source #11, Britannica, generally it's best to avoid tertiary sources. On the other hand, it is useful to talk about something being "widely" known via a tertiary source, so not a big problem, but if you can swap it out for another secondary source with the same information, that would be an improvement.
What reason is there to believe that The Art Story (#3) is reliable? It looks good at first glance, but many nicely-formatted websites contain unreliable information. There are no specific contributors given so it's hard to judge their credentials. I'm sure there are many published histories of Futurism out there - it might be better to use one with named, notable contributors whose careers in art history can be better assessed.
Issues addressed sufficiently to pass. See comment below.
I think a sentence or two each on the background of Carra and Galli at the start of the 'History' section would be useful. Most readers, like me, may have little idea who either of them are and it would be useful to provide a very quick introduction for each before getting to the death and funeral of Galli. Done
Issue addressed. Pass.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
No issues of overdetail, pass.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Pass, no issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Pass, no issues.
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Is the study for the painting in the public domain in Italy? Either way it would be good to have a tag for it noting the fact on Commons, since the painting itself is not PD in Italy and is therefore tagged appropriately.
Pass, no issues. An image of Carra could be added without overcrowding the article if you choose.
7. Overall assessment.
Reply:
FN 3, The Art Story, is a nonprofit company that does descriptions/histories on art pieces. A cursory glance shows me that its very widely used on other pages here and the list of the contributors can be found here. The page, in a few places, states the info is vetted by doctorate-level professionals and I've found a few limited indications that the site is used for university-level art history cources. I would argue that it meets WP:RELIABLE. Etrius ( Us)19:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm willing to accept that, though I would prefer specific contributors to the Futurism article be listed. Given that this is GA, it won't hold the article back from passing, but I still recommend finding a different, peer-reviewed history of Futurism to source the information used. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I removed the study image since it can't be on commons. I nomed the commons page for deletion but am hoping to keep it as a file on en wiki. Will re-add when the move has been made. I replaced it with carra's image for now. Etrius ( Us)19:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I expanded out the history and the poem. I don't like using libcom.org but the author has enough qualifications to overcome reliability issues. Interestingly, the claim that he died in 1904 is widely cited but incorrect. Carra misattributed the death in his autobiography, with some sources claiming it was done to bolster his own credibility since the general strike of 1904 was a far more famous event. I also expanded the poem's context, and added an external link to an archived version. That should be everything, I'll archive the added sources. Etrius ( Us)21:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above 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.
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Overall: @Etriusus: Great article. Hook is interesting, qpq is done. Earwig reported a possible copyvio however it just seems to be earwig counting quotes as copyvios. Otherwise I approve this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Etriusus: Great article. Hook is interesting, qpq is done. Earwig reported a possible copyvio however it just seems to be earwig counting quotes as copyvios.