Talk:The Funeral of the Anarchist Galli/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: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. Sorry for the long wait! I'll be using the template below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual methodology, I'll go through and make any minor prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If you object to any of my changes, just let me know here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC) The first sentence under 'Description' says that the piece contains elements of Cubism, but the given source doesn't quite say that, instead mentioning a possible influence and noting that contemporary Futurists saw it as being opposed to Cubism. Also, having 'dynamism' in that list is a little odd, giving the impression it is an artistic movement, and not just a regular description. cleaned up I moved the History section above the Description section, since it provides useful context that helps the reader understand what is described. What did Kassak have to say about the piece? The inclusion of the sentence is a little odd if we don't give any detail of what he thought or what influence it had on him/Hungary.  Done Made some final prose tweaks to the new material. Pass on prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In Source #1, McKever, no need for all caps Source #6, Carra, is malformed - no need for the "|" characters, the ISBN should be dashed and linked, etc. I recommend creating it elsewhere in the text (outside the blockquote) in VisualEditor, switching to source mode editing, and then copying/pasting the resulting source-code-reference into the blockquote template. Source #9 the original link 404s... see if you can find a replacement that's working; if not, tag it as a dead link. The archive link is good. Source #9, no need for all caps Source #11, Britannica, generally it's best to avoid tertiary sources. On the other hand, it is useful to talk about something being "widely" known via a tertiary source, so not a big problem, but if you can swap it out for another secondary source with the same information, that would be an improvement. What reason is there to believe that The Art Story (#3) is reliable? It looks good at first glance, but many nicely-formatted websites contain unreliable information. There are no specific contributors given so it's hard to judge their credentials. I'm sure there are many published histories of Futurism out there - it might be better to use one with named, notable contributors whose careers in art history can be better assessed. Issues addressed sufficiently to pass. See comment below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Many issues flagged by Earwig, but these all turned out to be properly attributed quotes or similar. Manual spot-check turned up nothing. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think a sentence or two each on the background of Carra and Galli at the start of the 'History' section would be useful. Most readers, like me, may have little idea who either of them are and it would be useful to provide a very quick introduction for each before getting to the death and funeral of Galli.  Done Issue addressed. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues of overdetail, pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Is the study for the painting in the public domain in Italy? Either way it would be good to have a tag for it noting the fact on Commons, since the painting itself is not PD in Italy and is therefore tagged appropriately. Issue addressed, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, no issues. An image of Carra could be added without overcrowding the article if you choose.
	7. Overall assessment.

Reply:

• FN 3, The Art Story, is a nonprofit company that does descriptions/histories on art pieces. A cursory glance shows me that its very widely used on other pages here and the list of the contributors can be found here. The page, in a few places, states the info is vetted by doctorate-level professionals and I've found a few limited indications that the site is used for university-level art history cources. I would argue that it meets WP:RELIABLE. Etrius ( Us) 19:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to accept that, though I would prefer specific contributors to the Futurism article be listed. Given that this is GA, it won't hold the article back from passing, but I still recommend finding a different, peer-reviewed history of Futurism to source the information used. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• I removed the study image since it can't be on commons. I nomed the commons page for deletion but am hoping to keep it as a file on en wiki. Will re-add when the move has been made. I replaced it with carra's image for now. Etrius ( Us) 19:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Looks good, feel free to re-add as appropriate. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• I expanded out the history and the poem. I don't like using libcom.org but the author has enough qualifications to overcome reliability issues. Interestingly, the claim that he died in 1904 is widely cited but incorrect. Carra misattributed the death in his autobiography, with some sources claiming it was done to bolster his own credibility since the general strike of 1904 was a far more famous event. I also expanded the poem's context, and added an external link to an archived version. That should be everything, I'll archive the added sources. Etrius ( Us) 21:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  We're looking good! Doing a final check now. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  This now meets the GA standard and passes. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on the article! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2022 (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.