Wikipedia:Peer review/El Lissitzky/archive1

El Lissitzky

I'm not interested in this becoming a FAC or anything, I'm just curious what areas need improvement so that I can both improve this article and achieve a higher standard for future articles. As of now I'm kind of in the dark with what I'm doing right or wrong and have never really got any guidance. I read a lot of the guides and everything but I think some real criticism would be of much value. I'm particularly insecure about the prose and the flow of it all; I think it might be boring or maybe a bit convoluted. I definitely cant see the forest for the trees on this one. --Clngre 22:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

It looks very good overall, though I lack the knowledge of the subject to help too much. One question, did you use the subjects listed in the bibliography section for facts in this article or just to list sources for an interested reader? Unfortunately the word bibliography means both. Better citation always helps, especially for specific, potentially contentious facts. Oh wait, I do see some external links that do that. Why not collect them at the end to make it easier for someone to know they are there. Consider the Wikipedia:Footnotes way of doing it. Any reliable source you use can be formatted as a reference as at the first link I gave. I'll have to defer to others to comment on the prose, but my assumption is that if you are worried about it and focusing on trying to make it flow well, it probably does better than you think. - Taxman 23:50, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Almost all of the information came from those 3 books, so I'll rename bibliography to sources. I added external links at specific points just to kind of corroborate facts or quotes who's authenticity people might be skeptical of, but they weren't the primary source. Oh dear.I'm not sure if thats appropriate practice. In any case, I'll definitely do that footnote method. I noticed it on another page and I thought it looked quite sharp. Thanks for your input. --Clngre 00:51, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I also don't know much about the subject, which may be a good thing in commenting on the prose, because as someone who is not familiar with the subject, I found it informative, interesting and well written. I think it flows well. The only suggestions I can think of are firstly the headings - there is a combination of descriptive headings and dates, and this creates a disjointed look to the article. I would dispense with the dates completely. "Early years" and "Later years" don't need to be broken into smaller sections. That leaves "The Avant Garde". Rather than use dates I think a descriptive heading would be better as you've done with "Suprematism" and "Proun". For example in the section "1919-1921" the concept of suprematism is introduced and forms about half of this section, before leading into a section headed "Suprematism". Why not just remove the first heading "1919-1921" completely and put it all under "Suprematism"? The first sentence, even before discussing the topic of "Suprematism", is not out of place as it leads smoothly into it. I don't have a suggestion for the "1921-1924" section but there must be a way of making a similar adjustment.

I think the article ends a little suddenly. I think it would be worthwhile to include some kind of comment about how his work has been regarded in the years since his death. Have any artists cited him as an influence? How has his work contributed to the evolution of the genre? It's great to mention where his work is displayed but I think it could be expanded a bit to explain his relevance today. One suggestion - you've included some quotes about his works, which I really like, perhaps one or two more recent comments might help illustrate his continuing importance. It doesn't have to be in great detail, just a paragraph to wrap everything up. I'm no expert, but I think the flow and style of the article is appealing and engaging. We are often our own worst critics. Rossrs 14:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot, thats some solid advice. You're right about commenting on his relevance and improving the end, I'll go get on that for sure. I'm going to fix the headers now. Good headers do a lot for an article I think, they're definitely worth the effort. Thanks --Clngre 15:58, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well I do know a little about this subject (Russian emigre artist/architects), although not this particular individual. I would say the article looks pretty good indeed. I haven't been hanging around FAC recently, but I would be surprised if this isn't feature worthy. -- Solipsist 21:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I you say so. I don't really know if it is or it isn't. Even if it isn't, the level of criticism I've seen offered at the FAC page is usually very stringent and productive, so that might be a good idea. In any case I added some more info, namely on his legacy and influence, and some more images, so I should remove the peer review thing now. --Clngre 01:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

The article looks good to me. There are a couple of minor areas where I'd like to expand a little - it'd be good to be more specific about his influence, with some examples of works or quotes by artists. It'd also be good to expand on his children's book illustration, which I always saw as one of the boldest constructivist experiments. But these are minor things - the article looks ready for FAC to me. Warofdreams 15:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that - how individual pieces should be discussed and placed in context. The article is all very broad, I know, some specifics would really help. You seem to have a good understanding of his work on this level, if you'd care to add a few lines I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm kind of cautious about talking about individual pieces. I'm not particularily confident that I can do it in a way that is both accurate and neutral. It really isn't my realm, although I realize its importance. I'll see what I can muster, but if you'd like to help out that'd be great. Thanks foor the advice. --Clngre 17:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ok I've made some improvements I think. I significantly expanded the information on his childrens' book illustration, Jewish themes in his art, meaning of some of his pieces, architecture, and a bunch of other things. New images too and whatnot. I also made a stub article at the Russian avant garde page because I thought it looked kinda bad having a red link in the first paragraph. If someone can tell me if the article holds up now, maybe it should be submitted to FAC. I don't know, you tell me. To be honest, FAC and the people that hang out there scare me. Really, they're intimidating.--Clngre 04:48, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)