Talk:Vladimirka (painting)

Vladimirka (painting) 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: January 2, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Vladimirka (painting) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 August 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the subject of the painting Vladimirka (pictured) is a road that was used to transport prisoners to Siberia on foot?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vladimirka (painting).

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

Russia Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Vladimirka by Isaac Levitan

... that the subject of the painting Vladimirka is a road that was used to transport prisoners to Siberia on foot? Source: Petrov, Vladimir (1992). Исаак Ильич Левитан (in Russian). p.81
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KRCL

Created by Golden (talk). Self-nominated at 20:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

New enough, long enough, and well referenced to almost entirely offline and Russian-language sources. The hook is interesting with AGF for verification. QPQ is done. 97198 (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vladimirka (painting)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MX (talk · contribs) 01:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hello. I'll review this one. The review will include two parts: first, I'll review prose and provide copyediting recommendations, if needed; for the second part, I'll review the sources and appropriate attribution. MX (✉ • ✎) 01:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

they emerged onto the Vladimir Highway, an unpaved road that runs east from Moscow and is frequently used to ferry prisoners to Siberia for exile. — My idea is that this should be in past tense, meaning "...was frequently used to ferry prisoners...". I checked and the highway no longer exists.

received very little attention from Petersburg critics — I would suggest we add "Saint Petersburg" as a whole. Is it customary to remove "Saint" from future mentions?

all create an uneasy and oppressive atmosphere accompanied by the thoughts of the many prisoners who have passed through this road – This is a good interpretation/analysis, but it would work better as a direct quote from the art expert. Otherwise it may be unecyclopedic.

The only signs of hope are the bright spot in the horizon and the distant white church.[23][24][25][26] — This is a WP:CITEKILL incident. Do we really need these many sources for this claim? Perhaps we can expand the info and spread these out? I'm happy to help you add them all into one source (i.e. cite merging).

Additional comments

I want to bring up that this article, in Russian Wikipedia, is in Feature Article status. I noticed that there is a full section called Эскизы, этюды и повторения (Sketches, studies and repetitions) that could be used here, too. Could there be a chance you can add that here? I think the source is valuable and worth adding her to broaden the scope of this article prior to promotion.

Sources and images check out and everything else looks good. Thanks for the wonderful article. MX (✉ • ✎) 22:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MX: I've implemented the above changes. Regarding the citekill issue, I removed the one citation by the same author, which was essentially a repetition. Additionally, I included a section for sketches and replications. It is shorter than the ruwiki article because the ruwiki article seems to go into excessive detail about why Chekhov rejected the sketch, which I believe is irrelevant to an article about painting. Thank you for the great review! — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA assessment

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Concerns have been addressed. Article is promoted to GA status. MX (✉ • ✎) 17:26, 2 January 2023 (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.