Talk:Low Marks Again

What is up with the "Subject" section
The Subject section has no place in Wikipedia. It is a completely subjective interpretation of the picture and reads as an example of a school child's answer to the question "what is happening in the picture?". 217.32.159.228 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. I can find no sources to back the claim for the "interpretation" of this painting. It seems completely fictionalized and subjective to the editor who wrote it. I can find absolutely no reasoning behind it. It needs to be removed unless RS can be found to back the claims. Maineartists (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Low Marks Again. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160401061622/http://artclassic.edu.ru/catalog.asp?ob_no=18898&cat_ob_no=17574 to http://artclassic.edu.ru/catalog.asp?cat_ob_no=17574&ob_no=18898

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Subject" content removed
I have removed the unsourced "subject" section due to non-sourced, subjective, fictionalized content. There are no sources that back the claims made by the creating editor. There is just no plausible way that statements such as: "a tied bag that seems to have served as both a ball and a sled to its owner", "with a pair of old skates sticking out", "He sighs and his entire appearance is an act of faking "genuine" sadness because of his failing grade", "she has realized that the boy has played on the street and is not really worried about receiving low marks", "the bright red scarf of a Communist "Pioneer" (like a Soviet Eagle Scout)". Subjective and Objective reaction aside, this does not sound like the research of online sources but a personal (and very badly) interpretation of a single editor. Until RS are found, it should not be reinstated. There is nothing that supports any of the statements that the boy is feigning remorse or that he has been playing in the streets; that the younger brother is laughing at him, that the mother is upset, or the sister is reproachful. The boy is far from "sloppy", his shoes are sparkling clean and his coat, hair, pants and face are immaculate. That being said, RS is what matters. Plain and simple; and this section provided none. Maineartists (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)