Talk:Anyanwu (sculpture)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TLarish (talk · contribs) 20:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very neat! Will review. TLarish (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Clean and clear. However:

"Ogbechie believes that Enwonwu appropriated the concept[clarification needed] and visual form of Anyanwu from the 1921 work Ethiopia Awakening by the American sculptor Meta Vaux Warrick Fuller."

Is there a difference between appropriating a concept and plagiarizing it? In other words, is this plagiarism or cultural appropriation?

The accusations of plagiarism have little to do with his dream as far as I can tell. It should probably be merged with the Alberto Giacometti section.

The prose is a list of facts that should be grouped by similarity in paragraphs. The second paragraph in Form and Interpretation has unrelated info in a single paragraph. Done

Organization

An infobox would help.

I would suggest branching the interpretation into another section below the history section. I don't think the praise, criticism, and accusations of plagiarism fit with a description of Ani and the statue.

I might also suggest putting the aim in creating Anyanwu in the start of the history section. Done

Images

Do we not have an image we can use? Any old image should fall under the non-free content criterion. I think it would be very helpful to actually have the sculpture to view.

Neutrality

The argument and counter-argument for plagiarism needs to be further discussed. Currently, there's a lot talking about how great the work is, and not enough attention given towards a potentially-crippling aspect of the piece.

It treats a lot of the source's opinions as facts. "The piece is emblematic of the sculptural traditions of the Igbo people and of the art of Benin." This is an argument from this source: https://web.archive.org/web/20210423142046/https://www.theartnewspaper.com/comment/ben-enwonwu-anyanwu

The article also relies too heavily on auction sources clearly promoting the statue. This clinches it for me. It really cannot be unbiased with sources that unreliable. TLarish (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this thorough review! I'm cogitating upon it. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TLarish and No Swan So Fine: What is the status of this review? It has been open for 3 months now and does not seem to have reached a conclusion. CMD (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to address these points today, sorry for the delay. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when you do. Thanks ahead of time. TLarish (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TLarish and No Swan So Fine, we're now past four and a half months with only a single new edit done over a month ago, a week after the most recent posts here. What is the status of this nomination? If significant progress can't be made before the New Year, perhaps it should be closed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a lot of mental anguish this month over how to address the plagiarism that appears inherent to the creation of the piece. Without a citation for his plagiarism, I fear it could be my interpretation rather than that of the cited text. Can I please withdraw the article from GA review? No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forget how to close a GA review.

Regardless, I should note I enjoyed working on this with you — however briefly it was. Exciting to see how you dote over quality. TLarish (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Swan So Fine, TLarish, I just noticed your comments. I'll close the review now. Unfortunately, there is no way to properly close it as "withdrawn", so it will an unsuccessful result rather than a successful one. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]