Jump to content

Talk:Stuckism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleStuckism 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 11, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
March 18, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Ambiguity

[edit]

"The Stuckists formed as an alternative to the Young British Artists (also known as "Brit Art") being patronised by Charles Saatchi."

The above is ambiguous: Which group was being patronised by Charles Saatchi?

S.

The YBAs. --Camembert

Defastenism

[edit]

An anon has added the following para on defastenism 

The Defastenists are close to creating an unstoppable remodernist art scene RECALLING THE EXCITEMENT
OF DADA AND FUTURISM BUT IN THE HERE AND NOW in Dublin, Paris, Berlin, Galway,Drogheda and New York. 
Bored with the diadactic and pessimistic art of postmodernism: The Defastenists make art inspired by 
their desires, fetises, obsessions and eccentricities. Founded in Dublin by artists Gary Farrelly and 
Alex Reilly, personel include: David Mc Dermott, Oisin Byrne, Padraic Moore, Sofie 
Iremongre, Liam Ryan, Donna Marie O'Donovan, Karim Mezianne and Seannan Oliver Manfred Kerr 
www.defastenism.4t.com

which has now been reverted.

I was tempted to revert it myself, if only for the heavy handed publicity prose. I've seen other users add discussions on self agrandising art movements before. However in this case it might be a genuine art movement associated with stuckism. In particular I found a reference on stuckism news from last May. I don't know how authorative stuckism.com is, but I got a sense that it wasn't a simple revert. In any case the paragraph needs clean-up and probably an article of its own with a link from Stuckism. -- Solipsist 15:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I should have copied the above to the talk page when reverting it: my mistake (the fact that it had been written over the top of something else didn't exactly make me very sympathetic towards it, if you see what I mean). Defastenism is actually already mentioned in the article, though admittedly the sentence in question ("Defastenism constitutes a sister movement to stuckism but is more interested in the exploration of the arist's fascinations than in the modernist revival") doesn't seem particularly meaningful. If somebody wants to write something neutral and informative about them, I won't have any complaints. As far as I can gather, however, they're quite a small group and haven't yet attracted much interest, so, without wanting to belittle their activities in any way, I won't be too concerned myself if that sentence is all we have for the time being. --Camembert

The Stuckists art group (founded 1999) inaugurated in 2000 a period termed Remodernism (for art, culture and society) so that Stuckist ideas could be applied to a wider context than painting. The Stuckists declared themselves the first Remodernist art group. The Defastenists appeared in 2004 and declared themselves also a Remodernist group, as indeed anyone can. There is no official link apart from that with Stuckism, although there have been collaborations with Stuckists, particularly with Jesse Richards of New Haven Stuckists (who has also founded Remodernist Film and Photography).

I am the general editor of www.stuckism.com and if anything is going to be definitive about Stuckism, then I guess this site is, as it launched the group in the first place and continues to co-ordinate what has become an international movement (of independent but linked Stuckist groups).

Feel free to email me on stuckism@yahoo.co.uk for any clarifications required.

Charles Thomson Co-founder, The Stuckists

Deleted edits about neomodernism

[edit]

This appears to be another self-authored art movement. I can find one reference to neomodern group in relation to stuckism [1], but it is a self-authored comment in a discussion group.

We will need references to independent 3rd party publications before we can accept it as verifiable. -- Solipsist 21:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted unverifiable fact

[edit]

No back-up evidence can be found to support gina bold's membership of stuckism. In light of this, her inclusion in "ex-stuckists" is inaccurate. Seriously 11:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Gina Bold's first solo show was 'Born to be Bold in 2007 at the Arlington Gallery. Wiki have made a false statement to include her name as an ex stuckist and to say that her first solo show was in the stuckist gallery. Gina Bold was never a Stuckist, she knew Thomson but that doesn't make her a Stuckist. see www.ginabold.com[reply]

Merge tag on Stuckism Wales

[edit]

I have put the information from Stuckism Wales into the Stuckism article here, as per merge tag, so it is currently effectively redundant, unless there is enough information to make an article like Stuckism in Australia. Tyrenius 10:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalism

[edit]

The article suggests that the movement has reached a global scale. If so, I don't think it should say it's a "British art movement" but instead an "art movement founded in Britain". If I'm wrong about the global aspect, then the wording of the article should be changed to reflects the movement's more limited scope. Theshibboleth 09:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on this, according to the Stuckism website list of groups. It is certainly proclaimed as "international". Tyrenius 12:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Founding members of the Stuckists

[edit]

The numbers seem to vary from 10-13. I think we need to establish a number which can be used consistently. Tyrenius 13:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Weekly

[edit]

There is/was no Pittsburgh Weekly. The secondary document used in this article as a citation is inaccurate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a google search the correct title appears to be "In Pittsburgh Weekly",[2] an "alternative" paper which ceased operations in 2001, when it was bought by City Paper.[3] Tyrenius 12:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what the source says. We probably should not be using this PR document as a source for this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk continued on Talk:Stuckism in America as it is more important there. Tyrenius 05:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Times

[edit]

footnote #4 doesn't link to the article, somebody fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.154.236.69 (talk • contribs).

Fixed. Tyrenius 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Bold

[edit]

repeated claims by Thomson that Gina Bold's first solo show was held at the stuckist gallery are false. Gina Bold's first solo show was at the Arlington gallery in Camden Town. Read the truth at www.ginabold.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.100.222 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tehran Stuckists

[edit]

I think we should move this page to "Stuckism International". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.146.216.34 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a term that occurs very often. "Stuckism" or "Stuckists" is usual. Ty 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are the man in charge but anyway the right name for the art movement is "Stuckism International" because it's name is "Stuckism International"--217.146.216.34 (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Hamed Dehnavi[reply]

No one's in charge of wikipedia articles, but we do have to follow the policies such as WP:NPOV, which demands that we verify information from reliable sources. The introduction page on stuckism.com uses the term "Stuckism" throughout, not "Stuckism International",[4] which seems to be the name applied to the gallery.[5] The movement is called "Stuckism" in the reference work, "Amy Dempsey (2002), ed. Styles, Schools and Movements, p. 295, Thames & Hudson". The logo contains the word "international", but it's not used normally, so appears to be descriptive, not part of the name. "Stuckism" is the most widely used term and should be used per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name. Ty 02:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe we can add "International" in the first line. For example "Stuckism is an international art movement founded in 1999 by...", and because Stuckism is against Jingoism we shouldn't seperate UK from other countries, beacause Stuckism in UK is a part of Stuckism International anyway and UK is a part of the whole world, they started the movement but that doesn't mean they have to be seperated from other countries. In "group shows" UK shows has been seperated from other international shows, this is Jingoism.--217.146.216.34 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Hamed Dehnavi[reply]

This is not an article by Stuckism on wikipedia: it is a wikipedia article about Stuckism, and is therefore organised according to wikipedia requirements. This means that we derive content from secondary sources, which may or may not agree with Stuckism sources, though these can also be included to state the movement's stance. Most of the activities have occurred in the UK, where it started, so it makes sense that these should be given the greatest weight and examined separately. However, Wikipedia is international, so it's not right to separate "UK shows" from "International shows", and I've retitled the latter as "Other". There are more UK shows listed than all the others put together. I've put in "international art movement" with a reference. Ty 04:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--217.146.216.34 (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Hamed Dehnavi[reply]
Any input to add content (preferably referenced properly)/improve the article is welcome. You can edit the article directly, or if you're not sure whether something accords with wikipedia policy and prefer to discuss it first, feel free to post here or on my user talk ("discussion") page. Ty 07:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Stuckism article

[edit]

Dear Ty, hi it's me again! I was looking at your wonderful Stuckist page here just now for the first time. In the opening introduction to this page, you include the comment: "reporting Saatchi to the Office of Fair Trading to complain about his power in the art world". This statement comes across as if Thomson and the Stuckists were actually successful in this complaint, but they were unsuccessful. Their complaint was proved to be unfounded and was not upheld. Therefore, it concerns me that the way it has been written with only half the full story in the overview of this wiki page, that it is misleading and could be misinterpreted by a potential reader, to show they were actually successful in their complaint. It could be interpreted as a WP:PEACOCK in the sense that the introduction is giving a positive spin on an event, and therefore it will "promote the subject of the article without imparting real information". I look forward to working with you to make sure the true story is properly represented in this page. Best wishes, your wiki friend, Madeofstars 14:00, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

I'm not sure why you are addressing your remarks to me, not what you mean by the opening comment. I trust you are not implying WP:OWN. If that's what you mean, then you had better back it up. Otherwise, I've already pointed out[6] your previous inappropriate personal comments, so I suggest you stop making them. You obviously have different standards to me. I certainly wouldn't call the article wonderful: it needs a lot more work on it. I've changed the lead per your suggestion, but in future, do it yourself. You've also completely misunderstood WP:PEACOCK. Read the rest of that page. Ty 17:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no I'm not suggesting you own this page, not at all. I just saw you'd made edits here, and thought it best to discuss this change here first before changing it, as from previous experience it can be a good idea to discuss changes first. I'm thrilled with your change, thanks for making that introduction clearer for readers, now the full story is properly represented. I'll read Peacock again, but what I was meaning is that, by the omission of the fact that OFT complaint was not successful, it may have appeared that the Stuckists were using that statement as a positive to reflect back on them. Anyway, it's all better now! Thank you for your help. Madeofstars 17:56, 17 December 2008 (GMT)
Well, I'm pleased about that, as I wouldn't want you to think that you couldn't edit pages. I concur that prior talk can be an excellent way to proceed with edits, and is a lot more sensible than serial reversions, which end up with blocks for WP:3RR. WP:BRD can be a good procedure. WP:PEACOCK is using generalised words like "important", "famous" etc, as opposed to stating the facts which should speak for themselves. Such words can be used if referenced. There's another term on wiki for the point you're making (I think), but I can't recall it offhand. I did put that sentence in the lead, but not with any intent to mislead: the outcome is stated in the article and I believe I added it there. Ty 18:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Thomson

[edit]

I reverted your edits to that article, as it was the same material as on Stella Vine and it's not in a satisfactory state as yet. It needs more work and there's no point doing two articles at the same time. Also it may need to be adapted to fit the different subject. Let's get one right first. Ty 18:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Stuckism. Ty 18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, if Wikipedia is a democracy, then surely you don't have ownership over those two pages? As you told me the other day? So I should be allowed to edit as I please. I was going to add in some phrases to help them fit in, but you have removed them before I had the chance. I also don't even think they were that out of context when you consider the opening paragraph of Thomson's page contained the comment he was briefly married to Stella Vine, but the remainder of the article has no information. The sections I added are fully referenced, showing both sides of the debate and all very clear as fact. I look forward to speaking with you. Madeofstars 18:43, 18 December 2008 (GMT)

I moved the above conversation thread, to allow other editors to be aware of this, which shows I have been stopped from making edits to this page and also that of Charles Thomson's. I am still awaiting a response from Ty regarding why this is, and whether he claims ownership to this page. Madeofstars 18:51, 18 December 2008 (GMT)

I will take the above comments and the edit summary "I have been prevented from editing this page" as a misunderstanding on your part through lack of experience. Please refrain from pejorative edit summaries with no basis in fact. You have a habit of jumping to conclusions. You have not been prevented from editing. You have done so. So have I. Your edit was to insert material. My edit was to remove it. We are now discussing. A perfect example of WP:BRD. The material was copied across from Stella Vine. For one thing it's a violation of GFDL as it's not stated to be copied from that article, so there is no credit to the work of other authors who may have contributed to it. However, worse than that, it has bias and inaccuracies and needs more work on it. In that state, there is no point in it being in three articles and having to do every edit to the passage in triplicate. Does that not make sense? I suggested getting it right in one article, namely Stella Vine, first. Ty 19:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figurative painting in opposition to conceptual art?

[edit]

Why is figurative painting placed in opposition to conceptual art? Wouldn't the Stuckists have simply favored painting -- both figurative and abstract, over more conceptual artworks? I don't think abstract painting is generally considered conceptual. Instead of "figurative painting," shouldn't this article simply say "painting?" I see the same situation at the Stuckism in America article. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ref says "figurative painting" and so does the Stuckist web site (home page), as well as other pages.[7] It doesn't mention "abstract painting",[8] and there's nothing relevant on "abstract".[9] So, failing sources, any other definition would be WP:OR. Ty 02:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I stand corrected. And after looking at examples of Stuckist painting, I see it is all figurative. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Stuckist Manifesto states: "Stuckists champion process over cleverness, realism over abstraction, content over void, humor over wittiness and painting over smugness." That to me reads as Painting over Conceptual Art, and within that: Realistic Painting over Abstract Painting. Cleverness is attached to conceptual art in the manifesto: "If it is the conceptualist's wish to always be clever, then it's the Stuckist's duty to always be wrong." The word figurative does not appear in the Stuckist Manifesto. Air (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's ironic, because none of them can actually paint worth a fart. If it weren't for Marcel Duchamp and his hated legacy, none of these idiots would've lasted past the first month in art college. "Realism", somebody put up a Stuckist painting that's actually realistic. It's post-modernism that made being a talentless blagger like Damien Hurst the most important thing in art. Perhaps it finds it's apotheosis, the ultimate in endless "irony", in Stuckism. They claim to be anti-post-modern while being completely post-modern, they'd be helpless, and be given no precious attention, without the art establishment being in the state it's in. Where'd they be in 1895 with their paintings a 10-year-old could've done?
92.40.249.251 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Introduction paragraph

[edit]

"The Stuckists formed as an alternative to the Charles Saatchi-patronised Young British Artists (also known as Brit Art or YBAs)." Why this comes in the first paragraph? this is just not true, Stuckism is not an alternative to YBA. Though YBA is mentioned in their manifesto, but being against something doesn't mean it is an alternative to that or it wants to be an alternative to it. I mean Stuckism has many more important statements and ideas about painting and art. And this sentence is not good as an introduction for stuckism in the first paragraph.Lapskingwiki (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it. It's not referenced. You can make changes yourself: see WP:B and WP:BRD, preferably referenced. See WP:REFB. Or, if you prefer, post on talk pages first to get other input. Ty 00:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though now the meaning of the sentece is true, but still I don't know why it's written in the first paragraph, because this gives a great importance to the issue. Stuckism has more holistic and important philosophies like it's the first Remodernist art group and it's also Anti-Anti-Art, but none of them is mentioned in the introduction. Since my english is not that good I need help for editing the senteces. PS: To Ty, if you remember we had a little discussion about internationalization of Stuckism which was very good.--lapsking 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapskingwiki (talk • contribs) [reply]
If you post any suggested changes on this page, I or another editor will check over them for you. Or you can write them in the article and they can be checked. References are needed for information not already in the main text (and preferably put in the lead - first section - even if already in the main text). See WP:LEAD for construction of the first section. It should contain an overview of the important points in the main text. There could be a lot of improvement to this article. It is a good idea to use secondary sources such as the Tate, and published sources such as the National Museums Liverpool book, The Stuckists Punk Victorian, which has an extract online, but Stuckist sources, e.g. stuckism.com can also be used to represent their position. Ty 00:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA comment

[edit]

The International movement section needs better organization, preferably using prose more. The use of third-level headers with multiple bold text make it very, very difficult on some browsers to tell the difference between them. It's also highly unprofessional and inappropriate to have major subheadings containing only a single sentence, as is the case with the Africa, Canada, Iran (actually 2 short sentences), and New Zealand subsections.

The Group shows section is also mostly just a bulleted list with no real description, and it's very unprofessional to have so many images inserted at what appears to be random places throughout the list. The section also appears to suffer from the same subsection issues as before, to a lesser extent. I see several countries listed with just a single bullet point -- again, highly unprofessional. You should also have some sort of delimiting mark (such as an endash) between the year and the description for each item (a space doesn't cut it). If the section is best presented as a list, it would be better to move it to the end of the article (right before 'see also'), not in the middle (the idea is to keep the prose-based sections at or near the top). Remember, we're working on an encyclopedia here, not a random collection of lists,...

Your article will also FAIL GA with some many external links. Review WP:EL and trim the section to just the essential links and keep the linkspam to a minimum. WTF? (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's Done. lapsking (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Stuckism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 10:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[10] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: two found and fixed.[11] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    There is poor prose in places.
    Examples:
    ''The first group of 13 British artists has since expanded, suggest "initial" rather than first.
    ''After exhibiting mainly in small galleries in Shoreditch, London, "mainly" suggests that there were some major galleries.
    The membership had been evolved over the previous twenty-five years through creative collaborations "had evolved" is better.
    the group was promoted as artists, but members continued to work in various media, including poetry, fiction, performance, photography, film and music, as well as painting. word choice, perhaps "visual artists" rather than just "artists".
    ''The second manifesto was An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota which received a brief reply from him: "Thank you for your open letter dated 6 March. You will not be surprised to learn that I have no comment to make on your letter, or your manifesto 'Remodernism'." We don't wikilink part of a title, in this case "An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota", better to recast and wikilink a separate mention of Serota. I find the whole sentence confusing as it mentions "Remodernism". So how come the third manifesto is mentioned in the second manifesto? Not done
    In 2005, Fraser Kee Scott, director of A Gallery A Gallery should be wiklinked at first mention, rather in the following sentence, and the location of the gallery added. Not done
    Scott, who was the gallery owner He was the director in the previous paragraph?
    Thomson's painting, Sir Nicholas Serota Makes an Acquisitions Decision, is one of the best known paintings to come out of the Stuckist movement, needs in text attribution of who said this. Not done
    Group shows This should be spun off into a separate list-class article.
    There are a large number of solitary sentences or short paragraphs, which need to be consolidated. Not done
    The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD Not done
    The article needs copy-editing to improve prose flow. At the moment it does not meet the "reasonably good" criterion. The article looks rather like a random collection of facts. Not done
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    ref #28[12] doesn't actually say that she lost her job, it suggests it may have been a cause, but also mentions other possible reasons.
    Thomson stood as a Stuckist candidate for the 2001 British General Election, in the constituency of Islington South & Finsbury, against Chris Smith, the then Secretary of State for Culture. He picked up 108 votes (0.4%). Childish left the group at this time. needs a cite, in fact much of this section is uncited - tags have been added here and in other sections. Also why is "Childish left the group at this time." here? Was there some connection between the events? Not done
    Inconsistency in citations, e.g. "Stuckism.com" and "Stuckism web site" and "stuckism.com" and "Stuckism"
    refs #59, 60, 61 Flickr.com are not reliable sources
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Licensed, tagged and captioned. Iy is good to see so many artists licensing their work under copyleft licenses.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, a lot of work is needed to get this into shape. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold extended for further seven days - 13 September. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the article is improved but the prose and organisation is poor. You have asked for help with this and with the lead on my talk page. It is not the job of reviewers to rewrite articles to make them meet the GA criteria. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors may be able to help, but probably not in the two days left. This work should be done before the article is nominated. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A few minor improvements have been made but the prose still reads badly throughout, the lead does not fully summarise the article. Get it copy-edited, eliminate the short paragraphs, construct the article so that it flows well. When you have done that put it up for peer review and, when all fixes have been made, renominate. Not listed at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first group of 13 British artists has since expanded, suggest "initial" rather than first.
Done.
After exhibiting mainly in small galleries in Shoreditch, London, "mainly" suggests that there were some major galleries.
Done.
The membership had been evolved over the previous twenty-five years through creative collaborations "had evolved" is better.
Done.
the group was promoted as artists, but members continued to work in various media, including poetry, fiction, performance, photography, film and music, as well as painting. word choice, perhaps "visual artists" rather than just "artists".
Done (I changed artists to painters).
The second manifesto was An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota which received a brief reply from him: "Thank you for your open letter dated 6 March. You will not be surprised to learn that I have no comment to make on your letter, or your manifesto 'Remodernism'." We don't wikilink part of a title, in this case "An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota", better to recast and wikilink a separate mention of Serota. I find the whole sentence confusing as it mentions "Remodernism". So how come the third manifesto is mentioned in the second manifesto?
"Remodernism" manifesto was written just a month after "An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota" and they both were sent to him. So it's correct.
In 2005, Fraser Kee Scott, director of A Gallery A Gallery should be wiklinked at first mention, rather in the following sentence, and the location of the gallery added.
Done.
Scott, who was the gallery owner He was the director in the previous paragraph?
Done (Changed director to owner).
Thomson's painting, Sir Nicholas Serota Makes an Acquisitions Decision, is one of the best known paintings to come out of the Stuckist movement, needs in text attribution of who said this.
Done.
Group shows This should be spun off into a separate list-class article.
Done.
There are a large number of solitary sentences or short paragraphs, which need to be consolidated.
Done (Those possible).
The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD
Could you help me with this one??
The article needs copy-editing to improve prose flow.
Could you show me the examples?
ref #28[13] doesn't actually say that she lost her job, it suggests it may have been a cause, but also mentions other possible reasons.
Done.
Thomson stood as a Stuckist candidate for the 2001 British General Election, in the constituency of Islington South & Finsbury, against Chris Smith, the then Secretary of State for Culture. He picked up 108 votes (0.4%). Childish left the group at this time. needs a cite, in fact much of this section is uncited - tags have been added here and in other sections. Also why is "Childish left the group at this time." here? Was there some connection between the events?
Done (All cites added).
Inconsistency in citations, e.g. "Stuckism.com" and "Stuckism web site" and "stuckism.com" and "Stuckism"
Done (all changed to stuckism.com).
refs #59, 60, 61 Flickr.com are not reliable sources
Done.

lapsking (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

redlinked names

[edit]

There are a significant number of artists named in the article that have no corresponding article. I have already removed Frank Christopher Schroeder on the basis that the name seems to have been added by the artist himself (see [14]), and I can't find any obvious sources to justify inclusion (which would mean meeting WP:ARTIST criteria). I intend to remove any others not supported by third-party reliable sources when I have the time, and ask that anyone watching this page ensures that the article isn't used for self-promotional purposes, and instead conforms to Wikipedia policy - we aren't here to provide a directory, or an exhaustive list of every self-proclaimed Stuckist artist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Stuckism/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 11:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


2nd GA review for this, as it seems, I will try to be done with a first assessement later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I put this on hold, but I actually doubt that the problems I have can be dealt with in the matter of 7 days. But first things first:

The biggest problem I have is referencing:

  • I have a general problem with many things only being referenced with links to the project's own website.
You are right that care is needed. Citing a primary source can be a problem when an article is about a living person or a commercial organisation (though even then, such a source can be used with suitable care), but as a do-it-yourself movement the site may reasonably be relied on as a source of information about what the movement claims to be, and with care also the history of and participants in the movement. Equally, it is necessary to supplement this with sources that describe what other people think of the movement. As long as these two things are clear, it is entirely right that the website should be a major source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that this might apply to some of the references here. But in some instances, this source is used to prove points that are not the opinion or history of the group, but rather make judgements that I would rely on impartial sources for, like the ref after the sentence helped by press interest in Tracey Emin, who had been nominated for the Turner Prize. If there is press interest, then that should be cited by a press source. Which is no problem, since the stuckism.com Link provided links to a press article that could be used. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a ref for Emin as suggested. Some of the other refs sourced to Stuckism.com are actually to other reliable sources (like The Times) but archived there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole third paragraph of the lead section lacks refs.
Done.
  • In "Manifestos", the sentence The most contentious statement in the manifesto is lacks a ref to who's opinion that is.
Done.
  • In "Growth in UK" the sentence In August 2005 the Stuckists initiated a major controversy lacks a ref to who calls it a major controversy.
Done.
  • Same problem with the sentence In 2004 outside the launch of The Triumph of Painting at the Saatchi Gallery they wore tall hats with Charles Saatchi's face emblazoned and carried placards claiming that Saatchi had copied their ideas. in "Demonstrations".
Done.
  • And same for the last sentence in the "Europe" section.
Deleted due to lack of reliable source.
  • The biggest issue however is the huge number of dead links, namely refs 15,19,26,27,28,29,30,32,33,38,39,46,48,49,56 and 62. That's a lot of work right there.
Please note that dead links are not a matter for GA: they may rightly be noted but their presence is not a valid reason to fail an article, nor should their removal be demanded. See Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was not how I initially interpreted that instruction, but if it consensus, then I'll leave that out of the assessement. I still feel though that about 50% dead links pose a big question over the article being in compliance with WP:IRS. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once notable, always notable. The procedure with dead links (outside GA) is defined, and includes looking on archive.org for archived copies of old web pages, among other steps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, refs 13 and 73 lead to blogs. I would question that they comply with the standards of reliable sources.
Deleted due to lack of reliable source.
I don't wish to seem unduly argumentative, but the website LA-Stuckism is a blog only in name; it is simply the website of the Los Angeles Stuckist Group, and the source is valid on their view of Stuckism. (It cannot be assumed to be reliable on any other topic.) The concern with blogs is that anyone may write them; but here we can see that this is written by a splinter group of Stuckists, which makes it of direct interest as a source of what they thought. That they do not agree with other Stuckists (and are not representative of them) means the source must be used with care, rather than rejected out of hand. The same principle will apply to other Stuckist groups. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose: Two things here

  • The first sentence of the second lead paragraph (starting Childish and Thompson have issued) is grammatically wrong as far as I can tell.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is the following sentence in "Manifestos": The second and third manifestos, respectively An Open Letter to Sir Nicholas Serota and Remodernism, were sent to Nicholas Serota, which letter received a brief reply
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broad coverage I also placed a hold tag here, since I feel that

  • You miss to tell the reader who Nicholas Serota is when he is introduced in the "Manifestos" section.
He is director of the Tate. Done. lapsking (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More importantly, the "Responses" part is very short and could lead to people assuming a bias. I would expect that a group such as this has more criticism directed at it.
Extended. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images The image gallery could use indications which years the pictures are from.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will give the author(s) seven days to address these issues. If they are unable to do so, I am afraid I will need to fail this article for GA a second time. I hope you will be able to do it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


A major improvement has taken place and since my biggest concern does not seem to have relevance for GAN, I will gladly give this my stamp of approval. Thank you for your good work!

PS: I enjoyed the touch how the article now mentions that someone in the art-world has read it. Nice! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone, for the review and the improvements. lapsking (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Stuckism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuckism is the correct title, not Stuckism International

[edit]

See the Stuckism web site at http://stuckism.com/world.html where the text reads:

A note on "Stuckism International". This does not exist as an entity, despite more protestations from Hamed Dehnavi. Just "Stuckism" exists. Stuckism is based on a philosophy manifested practically. The epithet "International" is merely descriptive, not part of any formal title. Anybody who thinks it is must have delusions of grandeur. In fact it was added tongue-in-cheek, but some people don't have much of a sense of humour. It is, to labour the point, just saying that Stuckism is international - which, the perceptive viewer will by now have realised, is a tautology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisionismism (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The name needs to be changed in the 3 boxes at the bottom of the main page:

Remodernism [show] v t e Art movements [show] v t e Criticism of postmodernism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisionismism (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stuckism. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stuckism&oldid=1205486791"