Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Added The Song of the LarkEdit

Have added The Song of the Lark (painting) in case anyone would like to fill it in, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on draft for artist Laura BermanEdit

Hello member of WikiProject Visual arts. I was hoping someone could offer feedback on a draft I created about Laura Berman, a monoprint maker based in Kansas City, Kansas at User:W12SW77/sandbox/Laura Berman I have a COI as a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by Laura Berman. Thank you for your help!W12SW77 (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It comes across as okay to me, based on Berman having works in several public gallery collections and also some evidence of passing WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable secondary publications. Sionk (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Zinc oxide Edit

An article that been involved with (Zinc oxide ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Zinc white). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 17:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I saw a mention to this article on a page I just deleted and decided to check it out. The article is tagged for being like a resume and only has one source. Apparently, this artist is "award-winning" and prominent in Australia but aside from a few short articles in an online search, I mainly came across sales/auction/gallery sites when looking for more information on him. I originally went to WikiProject Biography for the Arts talk page to look for help but it looks like that task force is inactive so I came here. Not sure whether this article can be improved or should just be PROD'd as I'm not familiar with artist biographies on Wikipedia. Just posting here in case there are editors who are more experienced with working with artist's websites and are able to judge notable artists from those who just have a good marketing team. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons trying to pull File:Dignity (34922267671).jpg from the Dignity statue pageEdit

Wouldn't fair use per "essential to describe the page" be a criteria for saving this beautiful photograph of a statue? Or can someone transfer it from Commons to Wikipedia? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please upload this photo to English Wikipedia and fill out a fair use exception for the Dignity (statue) page, I'm not able to do so. Thanks. Being told at commons that it will be deleted there. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: Done. — Golden call me maybe? 12:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I have no idea if it will last here if commons gets rid of it, and hopefully the sculptor himself can arrange permission (I left a note at the commons deletion page about possibly making that arrangement). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen in the 2023 Brasilia attacksEdit

New article: Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen in the 2023 Brasilia attacks ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Cartoon paintingEdit

Please, can you help me to find the name of this painting? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.235.244 (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The Embrace, BostonEdit

The Embrace is getting a lot of attention, if any project members want to help improve. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

More common name: "Abduction of Ganymede" vs "Rape of Ganymede"?Edit

Please see: Talk:The Abduction of Ganymede#More common name? Paul August 14:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summaryEdit

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed
Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62)
Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProjectEdit

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Adolfo Farsari
  2. An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump
  3. Dürer's Rhinoceros
  4. Four Times of the Day
  5. Freedom Monument
  6. Triptych, May–June 1973