 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Pittsburgh/Art Since 1945 (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Notability
editClearly, in a strict sense, this painting satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but how do we justify its existence in the context of Frida Kahlo's presence on Wikipedia? On Kahlo's page itself, there is no list of 'notable' works, which is not surprising since it's a sad article with many types of flaws. Still, this article could be improved with a clear statement (perhaps in the lede) about its historical importance, which would help readers follow the article and situate it within Kahlo's work as a whole. Otherwise, this article is very well-cited.
Related: it would also be highly desirable to create inbound links from other wikipedia articles, so it's not an orphan, and can be discovered by interested readers. Aolivex (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Picture
editThe discussion could be much easier to follow with the addition of an illustration. You can find one on WikiArt, although there may be copyright issues with this. Aolivex (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Background
editIt would be highly desirable to pull in biographical information from the main Frida Kahlo page, to avoid repetition. This could also be strengthened with a more detailed account of the background of the painting itself, rather than the artist's biography. It would also be helpful to contextualize this specific painting in her practice at the time; for instance, the pet deer is mentioned. Can we relate this to her treatment of animals in her art more generally? The inclusion of the poem helps. Aolivex (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Description and Interpretation and Analysis
editThese sections must be integrated. Without analysis, the description section reads like a long list; the reader has no sense of where she's going. Likewise, the "analysis" alone feels thin, sine it lacks the necessary descriptive evidence to make sense of the scholars' conclusions. Recommend integrating and reworking. Aolivex (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)