Talk:Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash

Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 3, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Visual arts

This article 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 August 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 1912 Futurist painting Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash was inspired by Giacomo Balla's fascination with chronophotography?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash.

Wikipedia

WikiArt

Is an unreliable source (crowd sourced). Can we replace it with something else? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —swpb^T 14:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 23:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —swpb^T 14:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

1. Prose quality:

The lead length is appropriate for the length of the article, but the lead mostly consists of a description of the painting, which is not elaborated elsewhere in the article, and very little of the rest of the article is summarized in the lead. Instead we should have a description outside the lead, and a summary of all sections of the article within the lead, per MOS:LEAD and GA criterion 1b.
I'm not sure we need the repeated wikilinks to Duchamp's Nude in the "Critical Responses" section, since the same links are present only a few lines up.

2. Sourcing:

All references look reliable and well formatted.
Reference [1] (Albright-Knox gallery) is a deadlink that redirects to the gallery's front page.
Every single source checks out, sources what it is supposed to source, and does not appear to have been excessively copied from. I find this astonishing; it is very rare in GA nominations, and the nominator and other article editors should be commended for it.

3. Coverage:

This seems to cover what it should cover, without going into excessive detail; no issues noted.

4. Neutral:

Critical opinions on the value of this artwork differ, clearly, but the article neutrally presents them rather than taking sides.

5. Stable:

Very. No significant changes since last October.

6. Illustration quality, copyright, and captioning:

Reference [1] has a much better copy of the image, which (as a work published prior to 1923) is in the public domain. The problem with the image we're using now is that it's a black-and-white reproduction (copied from a book) of a color painting. It doesn't do the painting justice to reproduce it in that way.

Summary: This article on a famous artwork is not long, but does not need to be. It is already very close to GA quality with only some minor touchup needed (mostly in making the lead into a proper lead and, I hope, replacing the image with one of better quality). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David Eppstein! I have, I hope, resolved each of those issues. —swpb^T 13:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all remaining issues handled, so I'm passing this. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —swpb^T 17:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]