Talk:Cyclist (painting)
 | A fact from Cyclist (painting) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 July 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| .jpg) |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Did you know nomination
[edit]- 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 Valereee (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
( )
Cyclist (1913)
- ... that the Russian artist Natalia Goncharova used a Cubo-Futurist style in her 1913 painting Cyclist (pictured)? Source: Harte 2009, p. 113
Created by GeneralPoxter (talk). Self-nominated at 14:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC).
- The article is new enough, long enough, QPQ has been done. The picture is the Russian equivalent of public domain, or similar, from 1913. The hook is cited and interesting. The number 3 ref is using an external link to google books in the body of the article, it needs to be put in standard format, the external link should be in the references section with its usual formatting. Other than that, this is fine. Desertarun (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Desertarun: Thank you for the prompt review. I made changes to the external link placements; please let me know if they are satisfactory. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This is good to go. Desertarun (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
State control and suppression
[edit]> Furthermore, art historian Paul Smethurst interprets the finger as a suggestion of "Soviet state control and suppression" against the freedom of mobility.
A painting truly ahead of its time?
- Yeah I was confused about this as well. It's probably not an issue with the source, since Smethurst is a professor in art history, so it is definitely my linking it incorrectly to the Soviet Union. Now that I look at it again, it's likely referring to the pre-Revolution Soviet (council), so I'll change the link to that. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Art history professors, well-educated though they may be, are not above making (admittedly embarrassing) errors. If you follow the link to the source, it is quite clear from the original text that Smethurst is simply confused about the timeline of Russian history; not only were the pre-Revolution soviets not nearly powerful enough to enact "control and suppression", but they were also disbanded in 1905, eight years before the painting's completion, and brought back in February of 1917. Thus it is only reasonable to remove that tidbit from the text before it propagates further. Vadim Galimov (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- All right, agreed. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Art history professors, well-educated though they may be, are not above making (admittedly embarrassing) errors. If you follow the link to the source, it is quite clear from the original text that Smethurst is simply confused about the timeline of Russian history; not only were the pre-Revolution soviets not nearly powerful enough to enact "control and suppression", but they were also disbanded in 1905, eight years before the painting's completion, and brought back in February of 1917. Thus it is only reasonable to remove that tidbit from the text before it propagates further. Vadim Galimov (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)