Wikipedia:Peer review/Piet Mondrian/archive1
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Piet Mondrian)
I think there is a shortage of art-related featured articles on wikipedia. I believe the article on Mondrian can become one. The article is comprehensive, well-written, and nicely fleshed out. However, I think improvements can be made. I am specifically looking for feedback regarding tone and content, but I'd welcome any suggestions that would help the article --Sophitus 22:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
- You only have one sentence (the "even a child could do it" thing, promptly refuted) that suggests that anyone does not admire his work. You might want to quote (in whole or in part) Salvador Dalí's famous putdown of Mondrian: "Critics have for several years used the name of Piet Mondrian as though he represented the summum of all spiritual activity. They quote him in every connection. Piet for architecture, Piet for poetry, Piet for mysticism, Piet for philosophy, Piet's whites, Piet's yellows, Piet, Piet, Piet . . . Piet, Piet, Piet, Peep, Pity, Piet. Well, I Salvador, will tell you this, that Piet with one "i" less would have been nothing but a pet, which is the French word for fart."
- That is simply an amazing quote, I can't believe that in all my research I never came across it. I will look into it and probably add it. For any others who are reading this, I'm looking for feedback like the user's above with regard to missing content as well as the writing style and tone of the article. I was hoping for a bigger response on peer review. --Sophitus 04:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- While I agree that the article might benefit from some contrasting opinions of Mondrian's work, I don't think this quote adds any value at all. If it wasn't the product of a notorious personality like Dali, it would be taken for what it is, a childish rant by a jealous egotist. =craigz August 13, 2005
- I've made some minor alterations to the first paragraph, which I felt was refuting some point of view or other for no reason. More widely, however, I would like to identify two main areas of concern:
- References; there aren't any of significant value: one link to a site in Dutch and a handful of links to the images on guggenheimcollection.com. If the main sources of information are offline (i.e. they are the books listed at the bottom) then this needs to be indicated within the article.
- Redlinks; the "Major works" section is letting the article down somewhat. What links do exist seem to be randomly directed at either individual article pages, as in Broadway Boogie-Woogie, or simply the image pages, as in Compostion No 10. I feel the list of works would be a good candidate for a child article at Major works of Piet Mondrian or something similar.
Also, some of the sections tend to be a little dry; describing the paintings in an almost clinical manner without giving much actual insight or context: how were these works received by the art community at the time, etc. Flowerparty talk 23:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions. I have to admit that I'm pretty busy right now, but I hope to begin working on the article a lot in about a month. In the meantime, any more comments are most welcome. --Sophitus 03:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)