Talk:Neoplasticism

This article should be rewritten. It has hardly anything to do with the topic. There is little in this article that should be kept. The sources are good. The section 'Assumptions' should be deleted. The French version is better but could be improved as well. I could rewrite it but I have first other issues to finish. Mirabella (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the "Assumptions" section, since it wasn't referenced and I couldn't find a source saying something similar. I've replaced it with a section quoting Mondrian in his most famous essays. I haven't finished yet as I'm trying to summarise Mondrian's thoughts based on his essays. I'll see how it goes, as this isn't so easy. Dealing with the concept of 'plastic' is not straighforward. Egrabczewski (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Theo van Doesburg

I am far from expert, however there is little reason to list Theo van Doesburg as a founder of Mondrian’s style and technique... in fact, Theo van Doesburg was hardly a painter, rather a very accomplished critic, publisher, organizer and bon vivant... or so I opine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.213.251 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

For all its many faults, I don't think that the article credits van Doesberg as founder of Mondrian's style. The article Theo van Doesburg explains their relationship better. Meanwhile, this article is very poorly sourced. So if you can improve it, please do. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography

Egrabczewski, you have done some great work on this article. It is well on the way to achieving WP:Good Article status (see that article for the criteria if you wish to have that mark of achievement).

One item that jarred with me is the section called "Bibliography", perhaps because it is used so inconsistently across Wikipedia. I prefer to be clear about whether it should read "Sources" (cited in the article) or just "Further reading". Right now, I think it is the latter: can you clarify? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks JMF. I like your cleanup of the article too. I'm focussing on content right now. Sorry about the lack of change comments. I hope it's not too frustrating.

Regarding 'Bibiolgraphy', I think it was already there when I started editing the article. I agree that we should have Sources/References and Bibliography/Further Reading. I'm not fussed about what they're called but it would be nice to have some consistency across Wikipedia. Egrabczewski (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is unlikely to happen because editors have their own preferences and at each article it is for local consensus to determine what is to be done. Usually it is not an issue because there is only one significant list but here there are two so we need to make a distinction and thus have two section heads. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)