Talk:Gallos (sculpture)/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 04:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture, controversy

I recommend moving the location info to a separate "location and installation" section because it groups well from a narrative and encyclopedic perspective with the second paragraph of the "controversy" section, which has less to do with controversy. That leaves the remaining material about the controversy well suited for merging into the new installation and location section as a complete narrative, and minimizes the sensational nature of a "controversy" section, which we tend to avoid.

See for example Wikipedia:Criticism: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias, whether positive or negative."

Further, having worked on dozens of articles about art, I have yet to find one that isn’t controversial. Since most good art is controversial by its inherent nature, in that it challenges preconceptions, beliefs, paradigms, and habits, it’s almost redundant to have a controversy section about any work of art. You may disagree, and you are free to revert. My changes are here. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Viriditas. Your changes are fine by me - Dumelow (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The third image was bunched up and works better spread out. I moved it to the next section. You are free to revert. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article had location and installation content in two separate sections. I recommend grouping the content together into one section, and merging the controversy section into it per Wikipedia:Criticism. I also recommend moving one of the images down to another section so it doesn’t bunch up the article. I performed the changes here. You may revert if you disagree. The article still passes GA. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 3 January 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.