Jump to content

Talk:Scottish art/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through and commence the review proper shortly. Looks interesting though! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - look forward to it.--SabreBD (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NB, on hold, while references are found for newly added material. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sabred, I'm afraid the article isn't really stable at the moment and I'm going to have to fail the review on that basis. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is disappointing, but I note the reason.--SabreBD (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

I have move this and the similar section to the see also section.--SabreBD (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

  • footnotes 61-65 need access dates and publishers fn 66 needs an access date; the publisher could usefully be expanded out to their full name.
I can format these, but (as mentioned below) are we happy that these are appropriate third party sources?--SabreBD (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're not ideal, but if they're only supporting the statement that a particular art school exists, they'd seem sufficient to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • some uncited bits (see c below)
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • some citations have publisher and location, some just publisher; this should ideally be consistent.
 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These include the ceiling at Prestongrange, undertaken in 1581 fool. 95, (1964), pp. 262–79." - something went wrong with the formatting here.
 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Since it lacked full details and did not match the notes I deleted it.--SabreBD (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

  • and described as "perhaps the finest medieval manuscript to have been commissioned for Scottish use". As a direct quote, I'd usually expect to see the source mentioned by name (e.g. "and described by historian John Smith as "perhaps...")
  • "and has been seen as "the founder of the Scottish landscape tradition"" - ditto. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

  • The second two paragraphs of the "Scottish Renaissance" may contain OR, as they are currently unreferenced.
The Scottish Renaissance and particularly these artists, are already mentioned with sourced in the text. The origins, which was sourced, does not appear to be directly relevant to an article on art. I am not against making a sub-section of this, but it needs not to be a repetition or unsourced.--SabreBD (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "In popular culture" section gives no references to support its choice of novels etc.
I deleted this.--SabreBD (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the second para of "Art schools and colleges" is unsourced/not supported by the references cited.
I removed the remaining unsourced part at the end, but does this refer to parts that have sources? There is also the issue of whether these are appropriate third party sources, since they are basically the websites of the institutions.--SabreBD (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

  • Is it worth defining early on what kind of arts the article will refer to? The main "art" article uses the definition "the visual arts, which cover the creation of images or objects in fields including painting, sculpture, printmaking, photography, and other visual media", which might make a good footnote.
Not quite sure what you mean here. Should we adopt this into the text or put it in a footnote?--SabreBD (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm about to dig through some of the possible sources on the modern period, so will come back to this section. 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I've done some wider "due diligence" reading. I'm not a specialist, however, so please challenge if you disagree!
  • My sense is that the article probably needs to be slightly stronger on the contemporary period - late 20th century, early 21st. Looking at online texts like Richardson, for example the introduction, there does seem to be a line of secondary sources discussing the interrelation of artists, modern Scottish identity and issues of funding and style. This doesn't come across strongly in these sections.
OK I will see what I can put together over the weekend.--SabreBD (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does need to give some sort of description of art organisations, schools etc. I'm not finding a huge literature on these for the contemporary period though, so it could be short. My advice would be to fold this into the main narrative, rather than as short, stand-alone sections, but that's not a GA requirement.
  • If this was an English article, I'd expect to see more on medieval ecclesiastical art. You probably know better than I do if this is the case in Scotland, but the coverage here appeared brief. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was probably a lot less of this than in England as Scotland lacked the wealth that was found in places like East Anglia as a result of the wool trade. A point that I think is made in the text is that the iconoclasm in Scotland in the Reformation era was also much more complete. In short, we do not have the same level of surviving material culture from the late Middle Ages.--SabreBD (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

    • The In Popular Culture section doesn't appear to satisfy the criteria for inclusion, WP:IPCEXAMPLES, at least not without a better explanation of why they relevant to the article. Are they notable examples of art criticism, for example, that sum up the character of Scottish art? Is there a secondary literature that explores the novels mentioned in relation to the subject at hand? If not then better off without. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The phrases "Perhaps those generally felt most applicable to the definition of 'art school', however, are the autonomous colleges or schools of art offering courses across both further and higher education boundaries. ", "In addition, some local authorities and private interests have also leant their support to the arts.", and "There are numerous small arts festivals in Scotland, but most of these are devoted to the wider arts, rather than just the visual arts." violate WP:WEASEL quite apart from being uninformative. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 19:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

  • Towriepetrosphere.jpg has a valid US PD tag, but lacks the corresponding explanation of why it is PD in the UK, the source country. I'd consider looking at providing a date of death for the author.
  • McTaggart, Through Wind and Rain.jpg claims PD based on the life+70 rule, but doesn't give a date of death for the author.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frances Macdonald, Sleeping Princess.jpg. Ditto.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done It is deleted.--SabreBD (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

  • I'd query if First 092.jpg is really telling us much about Scottish art (it looks like a grass square to me with some young people sat on it).
I removed this one. There is also not room for it.--SabreBD (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article, thankfully, complies with WP:GALLERY, which discourages the insertion of large numbers of images in galleries unless specifically justified and carefully selected.
  • There's some "wrapping" of images in the The European Renaissance in Scotland, Art schools and colleges and Twentieth century to the present sections, suggesting a little pruning is required.
I think this is no longer a problem, but I need to check the problem on a widescreen.--SabreBD (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS would have Lena Gaudie 1921 by William Lamb either right justified, or left justified under the second para I think. (NB: not a formal GA requirement though)
 Done It is deleted.--SabreBD (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a GA requirement (but would come up at FA) - are the carved stone ball from Towie really an ideal "intro" image for the article? They are in black and white, hand-drawn rather than a photo, and I'd imagine some of the later images might work better in drawing in the passing reader. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a fair point. We could go back to the Raeburn, as we have no picture by him in the article now. It would also be more representative. I will change it over in a few days, but hang on in case there are other suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice another omission, namely the omission of metal working, pottery (incl. porcelain), glass working, jewellery etc

Sculpture is not well covered in this piece either.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine and decorative art belong to different classifications thanks, largely, to the institutional theory of art, there would need to be a compelling reason not to keep it that way. The only Scottish sculptors I can think of are the architectural ones such as Mossman, are they fine artists? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 19:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already mentioned Stoddart and Paolozzi, there are many other notable Scottish sculptors. This article is about art, not "fine art".

I put the bibliography back. It is quite obviously a generalised list, that early writers used for the article. I see no harm in it remaining.

This article DOESN'T have a broad coverage for reasons I've discussed elsewhere on this page. It chiefly deals with painting from certain periods. Completely omits several major artistic movements to boot, and mainly concentrates on history. (Despite largely avoiding the whole issue of Calvinism, destruction of pre-Reformation art, artists' colonies, industrial revolution, Celtic Twilight/Revival, Scottish Renaissance, Vorticism etc and Lord knows what else.)

"it looks like a grass square to me with some young people sat on it" <- It's the quad of an art college in a section about art colleges. I used Gray's to avoid using Glasgow School of Art, which is almost "too obvious".

The Skating Minister, which is a cliche along with Vettriano's Butler. It's also arguably a fake, there was some controversy about that a few years ago.

I don't know what "weasel" is. Presumably some Wikipedia jargon. Can we use standard English here please? --MacRusgail (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC) p.s. Popular culture - have you actually read/seen Jean Brodie?[reply]

Try WP:WEASEL, which should explain what the editor meant. I'm not sure if the query on Jean Brodie was aimed at me, but for what it's worth, no, I haven't. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear here, most of these points seem to me to be disagreements with the GA review. I am attempting to comply with the points made in the GA as best I can and so I do not plan to respond where this is the case. If the reviewer can be persuaded to change their mind (or I have misinterpreted something), then I am happy to comply with any changes, but they have the final say in this review. On the broader point of alleged omissions, yet again there are references to these things in the text - perhaps a word search would help. Of course, if you have reliable sources and inclusion does not unbalance the article (bearing in mind that the sections use WP:Summary style summary style and are not meant to be comprehensive), then by all means go ahead and expand the text.--SabreBD (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weasel? Can you use English please? There are terms in our language for such things, without resorting to this week's Wikipedian neologisms!!! I have pointed out repeatedly to you my concerns about this article, but you choose to ignore them. This is not just an article about the history of fine art painting in Scotland.
Aye, it's fairly obvious that the reviewers haven't seen/read Jean Brodie. This kind of thing is the curse of Wikipedia. A lot of the reviewers seem to know little or nothing about the subject matter.--MacRusgail (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree that the article is notr sufficiently comprehensive, even for GA, in its coverage, which is extemely patchy. It is also a pity to see material that is filling some of the gaps removed on the grounds that it is impeding the GA process. At the same time additions should be referenced. I would suggest that this GA nom is withdrawn or suspended and the two principal current editors work on improving it before it is renominated or the review restarted. Johnbod (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scottish_art/GA1&oldid=1180419402"