Talk:Revolt of the Fourteen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) 11:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Marked as WP:GAFAIL due to being "a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria", namely criteria 3. More explanation can be found below. Additionally, before re-nominating it for GA I would recommend asking for another editor to see if it satisfies the WP:BCLASS criteria at WP:Peer review or a relevant WikiProject. I definitely feel that this article could reach GA status in the future, but it might take some work before it gets there. Don't be discouraged! It was a nice read and a fascinating topic.

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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1A

• Text is clear and understandable, but there are some instances where grammar could be improved. Overuse of commas and lack of connecting words makes the article harder to read and affects the prose. Phrases such as "by the highest order" could be clarified with simpler terms (I assume here it means "by order of the tzar", for example). Due to WP:GAFAIL, though, I did not analyze prose, spelling, and grammar in depth.

1B

• Didn't really analyze WP:WEASEL in-depth but overall the article seems to fit the MOS guidelines quite well, pending a more detailed analysis once renominated. However, a quick search both on Google Scholar and DuckDuckGo do not provide articles/websites/academic work on this topic as the first result, so I would recommend changing the title of the article to "Revolt of the Fourteen (Russia)" or most preferably "Revolt of the Fourteen (Art)"

2B

• Missing direct citations for quotes (e.g. 2nd paragraph in "Background" section). A larger number and variety of sources in the interests of neutrality and a better sense of the current academic consensus on the event is needed.

3A

• Some things that are missing:

• History of the Russian Academy as well as state-sponsored art in Russia up to that point.
• Comparison to similar prizes in other European countries (such as those given by the French Salon, for example)
• Context within other movements in Europe at the time (was there a wave of anti-academic art movements? Had there been in earlier decades and the wave was arriving late to Russia? Had genre painting fallen out of favor in Europe or historical painting risen such that it provoked this situation? etc.)
• More context as to the artists involved up to that point. So far the article really only mentions that they were "top artists" at the academy, but it would be valuable to know if, for example, they had successful careers already for private commissions, had previously received praise in the press, or if there was any other reason why the revolt of these individuals in particular caught so much attention. Particularly, who was Ivan Kramskoi and how did he end up leading the protest are two questions that would give a lot of insight into the background.
• I'd assume that an art protest worth of a GA would have a more important legacy than a paragraph would indicate, so I think a deeper analysis of the effects on Russian art, the careers of the artists involved, etc. would greatly benefit the article. If it is true that this event is the origin of realist art in Russia, then by all means it commands a deeper explanation of how.

• In essence, I think this article could probably be doubled in size and still stay on topic.

6B

• An article about an art "revolt" merits much more art, especially when many of the artists have very high quality images of their work on Commons.

Discussion

@A. C. Santacruz: Thank you for the review! I'll address all of the aforementioned concerns and try to renominate. Although I do have one question. I didn't quite understand what you mean in 6B. Should I include the art the artists had created? If so, wouldn't that be off-topic as it's not really related to the event itself? Cheers! — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 13:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Some examples that could be on-topic: Art that previously won medals would be on-topic when talking about the background and art that the artists created after the revolt (such as in the Artel or as part of the Peredvizhniki) would be on-topic in the "Results" section (which perhaps could be called "Legacy", but that difference is somewhat inconsequential). This might be much harder to find and not terribly necessary, but a sketch produced under the supervision of the Academy would also help clarify the structure of the competition in the "Background" section.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks and have a good day! — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 13:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, you too :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)