Wikipedia:Featured article review/El Lissitzky/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 15:00, 25 October 2008.

El Lissitzky

 * WP Visual Arts, WP Soviet Union, WP Russia, WP Hist of photography, WP Architecture, WP Bio,, notified

This article is no longer anywhere near WP:FA standards. The most glaring problem is the citation issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please specify the deficiencies wrt WP:WIAFA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See comment below at 03:18, 5 October 2008. The article is deficient on citations although it seems in better shape than when nominated. In its current state I would not have nominated it, but I can not vote to keep due to citation deficiencies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this, but I'm really not notably knowledgable on the topic. I believe most of my contributions were on the level of copyedits. If there is something in particular I can do to help, though, let me know. In particular, if there is anything someone tries to source & has difficulty, feel free to ping me, I'm often very good at that sort of thing. - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly true that this needs a lot more sourcing (assertion A is from X, B is from Y, etc). Unfortunately I know little and am busy, and "my" library is not likely to be of great help. I did also notice some lumpiness of prose but have already gone through it once. Considering how much I found in such a short time, there's likely to be more. So what are the other less glaring problems? -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through it a second time, and also notified WP Jewish history. What this article needs most acutely is a couple of patient people with time and access to a good library, for specific sourcing. (And a word from the de-nominator on what the non-glaring problems are wouldn't hurt.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I pinged two very good editors who may be able to help. I'm going to try to find time this weekend to add some refs. This is a wonderful article and imo it would be unfortunate to see it delisted. dvdrw 19:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with DVD on this one - great article. Tony, would you list what you think is of most immediate concern from a ref point of view and I'll see what I can dig up? Cheers --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to confess, that I rarely take as close a look at these things as I should. I generally just use the rule that every paragraph should have at least one citation since each is suppose to be a separate topic in a well layed out FA. I think I counted more than a half dozen without.  Start with those.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of us don't take as close a look as we should, but then most of us also don't nominate featured articles for review. It seems to me that nomination should follow a close look, and that if there was no close look then the nomination should quickly be followed by either that close look or a retraction. &para; As I understand it, the three articles most recently promoted to FA are Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge, The Greencards and Stonewall riots. I'd never even heard of the subjects of the first two of those articles, know little about the third, and have been utterly unrelated to the editing of any of the three. Each does indeed have an average of well over one note per (not so long) paragraph; let's compare their subjects with El Lissitzky. &para; No offense to those who appreciate feats of civil engineering, railway history, or the Sublime, but that railway bridge is (perhaps unfairly) not widely known. Give me twenty minutes in a good library and I'm sure I will not be able to find an encyclopedia article on it that's half as good as this one. &para; The Greencards is a name that doesn't seem slightly familiar even after I look at the article; they may be an excellent band, but (until I look at the list of references of that article, of course) I wouldn't know where in the library to start looking them up. &para; Clearly the Stonewall riots are significant, but they also belong to the area of US social/political history that still seems to be fought over, at least when the consultants of certain US politicians are looking for a "wedge issue". So particular claims are particularly likely to be challenged and to need backup. &para; Contrast these with El Lissitzky. His degree of cooperation with the Soviet regime in its most trigger-happy period may be a matter of dispute, but his early and mid career seem free of any major controversy and it's likely that virtually everything in an article about him of a length such as this could be sourced from the multivolume Grove encyclopedia Dictionary of Art and one or two books about Constructivism and/or the Soviet avant garde. Indeed, I'd hardly look askance at the article if its first paragraph were footnoted "This and all the following information comes from [single specified source] except where noted to the contrary." Problems would come when ignorant or careless editors added information without specifying its (other) source, thereby bringing the implication that it came from that source. &para; So I'd urge you, or anyone, to take a close look at sourcing before citing its awfulness as reason for FAR. -- Hoary (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your lengthy discourse suggests that the original FAR may not have been in good faith or undeserved. The article was in bad shape before this FAR.  It has improved greatly through the process.  My one ref per paragraph standard has not failed me.  I have never had anyone say that anything I nominated was unduly nominated and don't think that if you considered the FARed version you would have any doubt that this was well below FA standard.  Much of your discourse points to notability instead of quality.  I am not contesting notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts from the editors here on whether the table should be kept or not? There is the beginning of a discussion on the talk page. I'm unsure and would appreciate more feedback. dvdrw 23:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC) I deleted it, since the information was contained in the links. If anyone disagrees please say so. dvdrw 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple image problems The tags on the images even say: "the current status of this image is unknown". DrKiernan (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest we do? dvdrw 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored them on en: and added fair use. dvdrw 23:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How many fair use images are there now? These need to be kept to a minimum.
 * Sourcing seems OK, except for Legacy. Note the second sentence of the second paragraph appears to have an unsourced direct quote. Marskell (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can merge the sourced content (which is only a bit) from Legacy into other sections. Would four fair use images be ok? Now there are eight. I'm thinking: one for his portrait; and one each of his early, middle, and late work. Maybe it would be a good idea to restore the table, if we are down to only a few images... DVD 02:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the rationale for choosing the four works is a good one: depicting different styles, mediums and periods. DrKiernan (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.