Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2022-03-19

Good edits?[edit]

Per User talk:OrlaBan#Your edits, can someone else take a took at these edits, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

renaming Buddhist Painting[edit]

Buddhist painting has a name that might be too vauge and refer to a specific Northeast Asian tradition. Can someone look over it and confirm that this is the right title or propose a title change? Immanuelle (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subclass of Buddhist art, which might be equally vague, but still fine. It's a broad subject. Vexations (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New article, translated from Japanese or Korean. Pretty useless as it is - could be expanded, or merged to Buddhist art. The text, not the title, is the problem. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese, per Vexations (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Corbin Shaw notable enough for an article?[edit]

I was considering writing an article about the artist Corbin Shaw. I made a blank draft page in my userspace, and then tried to make a big list of sources for the article. I found quite a few, but after looking at the list, I feel like many of them aren't very high quality and/or independent (a lot of them are interviews and/or from small independent magazines where I don't know how to judge their editorial standards). I feel like this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, but I wondered if anyone with more experience could take a quick glance at my list of possible sources and give me any feedback on this. Thanks! Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article reassessment[edit]

Sacred Cod has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ɱ (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC re: WikiProject Public Art[edit]

Here I've asked if WikiProject Public Art should be converted into a task force of WikiProject Visual arts. Members of this project might be interested in weigh in. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early Modern Art[edit]

Sadly I don't see an alternative to deletion for this completely unreferenced piece, badly translated from Spanish. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, deletion seems to be the only option. The article is the Google Translate copy paste of the eswiki article Arte de la Edad Moderna (Art of the Modern Age). The eswiki page is a Featured Article there, so it can be translated in a better way in the future. — Golden call me maybe? 10:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the above, this has been in and out of the draftspace again. I've said there: "This is a poor-quality translation, completely unreferenced, of an article in the Spanish Wikipedia. It duplicates a number of articles we already have, few of which are linked to, and uses the wrong English terms the whole time, starting with the hopeless title. A considerable amount of well-informed work would be needed to bring it up to any respectable standard, & I can't see this would be worth it. Afd may be the only solution. Thoughts?" Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources[edit]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GAR for Spirit of the American Doughboy[edit]

Spirit of the American Doughboy has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 14:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing biographies of artists -- extraneous/over-extensive lists of exhibitions[edit]

Hi y'all, quick question about standards for editing and cleaning up articles that are biographies of contemporary artists. Per MOS:Visual Arts, exhaustive lists of an artist's exhibitions should not be included in an article - they end up looking like resumés instead of biographies, the information is only useful for the most important/notable exhibitions an artist took part in. There are many articles that have become just long lists of every single exhibition an artist was a part of, because the CV of the artist was used to fill out the article length. Is it appropriate to pare down these lists? I want to help make these articles in line with the MOS, but I feel weird deleting large amounts of content, even if it's just a long, unhelpful list. An example is Nick Cave's biography -- the exhibition list is just too long and includes nearly every show the artist has participated in. When is it appropriate to cull these kinds of lists?

Thanks for the guidance! 19h00s (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there should be different criteria for established artists and new artists. For established artists, list only the major shows (individual or with groups whose members at the time illustrate the stage of the career of the subject artist). For new artists, I think even minor roles in group shows are relevant as they are 'getting off the ground.' But in neither case should these lists be exhaustive. Rather, illustrative of the kind of shows they are getting in at that stage of their career. Or informative to the reader, e.g., illustrative of the genre they work in. I know this is still fuzzy and subject to the Wikip writers' judgments... 21:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Downtowngal (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I usually trim back CV/resume-like listings of exhibitions, limiting it to about 5 of the most prestigious solo shows, in prose paragraph form, not a list. If they have been in notable group shows like the Venice Biennale, the Whitney Biennial or Documenta, I will add those also in prose form and limited to about 3 shows. To my way of thinking these CV-type lists are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, they belong on the artist's personal website or their gallery's website. For emerging artist who meet our notability criteria, I will include group shows (the prestigious ones) in the 5 highlighted shows. In the case of Nick Cave, I'd remove the resume like list of teaching experience, but add some of that content (current position, and maybe the last one or two) in prose format, not list. When I do see a long list of shows, it usually is in a promotional article or autobiography, which can be red flags. What seems most important are the permanent collections an artist is in, rather than a long list of shows. Netherzone (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the help! Definitely agree that works in notable permanent public collections are the most important, and the Nick Cave page needs some more clean-up beyond just the exhibitions list. Appreciate the guidance here. 19h00s (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I believe I have a link or citation that would be helpful in developing the Jamaica Art article.Jabriyaheckstall (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]