Talk:Stuckism/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: Jezhotwells (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 10:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: two found and fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There is poor prose in places.

   Examples:

   ''The first group of 13 British artists has since expanded, suggest "initial" rather than first.

   ''After exhibiting mainly in small galleries in Shoreditch, London, "mainly" suggests that there were some major galleries.

   The membership had been evolved over the previous twenty-five years through creative collaborations "had evolved" is better.

   the group was promoted as artists, but members continued to work in various media, including poetry, fiction, performance, photography, film and music, as well as painting. word choice, perhaps "visual artists" rather than just "artists".

   ''The second manifesto was An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota which received a brief reply from him: "Thank you for your open letter dated 6 March. You will not be surprised to learn that I have no comment to make on your letter, or your manifesto 'Remodernism'." We don't wikilink part of a title, in this case "An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota", better to recast and wikilink a separate mention of Serota. I find the whole sentence confusing as it mentions "Remodernism". So how come the third manifesto is mentioned in the second manifesto? Not done

   In 2005, Fraser Kee Scott, director of A Gallery A Gallery should be wiklinked at first mention, rather in the following sentence, and the location of the gallery added. Not done

   Scott, who was the gallery owner He was the director in the previous paragraph?

   Thomson's painting, Sir Nicholas Serota Makes an Acquisitions Decision, is one of the best known paintings to come out of the Stuckist movement, needs in text attribution of who said this. Not done

   Group shows This should be spun off into a separate list-class article.

   There are a large number of solitary sentences or short paragraphs, which need to be consolidated. Not done

   The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD Not done

   The article needs copy-editing to improve prose flow. At the moment it does not meet the "reasonably good" criterion. The article looks rather like a random collection of facts. Not done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ref #28[3] doesn't actually say that she lost her job, it suggests it may have been a cause, but also mentions other possible reasons.

   Thomson stood as a Stuckist candidate for the 2001 British General Election, in the constituency of Islington South & Finsbury, against Chris Smith, the then Secretary of State for Culture. He picked up 108 votes (0.4%). Childish left the group at this time. needs a cite, in fact much of this section is uncited - tags have been added here and in other sections. Also why is "Childish left the group at this time." here? Was there some connection between the events? Not done

   Inconsistency in citations, e.g. "Stuckism.com" and "Stuckism web site" and "stuckism.com" and "Stuckism"

   refs #59, 60, 61 Flickr.com are not reliable sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Licensed, tagged and captioned. Iy is good to see so many artists licensing their work under copyleft licenses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, a lot of work is needed to get this into shape. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

   Hold extended for further seven days - 13 September. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

   OK, the article is improved but the prose and organisation is poor. You have asked for help with this and with the lead on my talk page. It is not the job of reviewers to rewrite articles to make them meet the GA criteria. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors may be able to help, but probably not in the two days left. This work should be done before the article is nominated. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

   A few minor improvements have been made but the prose still reads badly throughout, the lead does not fully summarise the article. Get it copy-edited, eliminate the short paragraphs, construct the article so that it flows well. When you have done that put it up for peer review and, when all fixes have been made, renominate. Not listed at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

---

The first group of 13 British artists has since expanded, suggest "initial" rather than first.

Done.

After exhibiting mainly in small galleries in Shoreditch, London, "mainly" suggests that there were some major galleries.

Done.

The membership had been evolved over the previous twenty-five years through creative collaborations "had evolved" is better.

Done.

the group was promoted as artists, but members continued to work in various media, including poetry, fiction, performance, photography, film and music, as well as painting. word choice, perhaps "visual artists" rather than just "artists".

Done (I changed artists to painters).

The second manifesto was An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota which received a brief reply from him: "Thank you for your open letter dated 6 March. You will not be surprised to learn that I have no comment to make on your letter, or your manifesto 'Remodernism'." We don't wikilink part of a title, in this case "An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota", better to recast and wikilink a separate mention of Serota. I find the whole sentence confusing as it mentions "Remodernism". So how come the third manifesto is mentioned in the second manifesto?

"Remodernism" manifesto was written just a month after "An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota" and they both were sent to him. So it's correct.

In 2005, Fraser Kee Scott, director of A Gallery A Gallery should be wiklinked at first mention, rather in the following sentence, and the location of the gallery added.

Done.

Scott, who was the gallery owner He was the director in the previous paragraph?

Done (Changed director to owner).

Thomson's painting, Sir Nicholas Serota Makes an Acquisitions Decision, is one of the best known paintings to come out of the Stuckist movement, needs in text attribution of who said this.

Done.

Group shows This should be spun off into a separate list-class article.

Done.

There are a large number of solitary sentences or short paragraphs, which need to be consolidated.

Done (Those possible).

The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD

Could you help me with this one??

The article needs copy-editing to improve prose flow.

Could you show me the examples?

ref #28[4] doesn't actually say that she lost her job, it suggests it may have been a cause, but also mentions other possible reasons.

Done.

Thomson stood as a Stuckist candidate for the 2001 British General Election, in the constituency of Islington South & Finsbury, against Chris Smith, the then Secretary of State for Culture. He picked up 108 votes (0.4%). Childish left the group at this time. needs a cite, in fact much of this section is uncited - tags have been added here and in other sections. Also why is "Childish left the group at this time." here? Was there some connection between the events?

Done (All cites added).

Inconsistency in citations, e.g. "Stuckism.com" and "Stuckism web site" and "stuckism.com" and "Stuckism"

Done (all changed to stuckism.com).

refs #59, 60, 61 Flickr.com are not reliable sources

Done.

lapsking (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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.