Talk:Chaim Koppelman/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I will copyedit as I go and post queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An early student of Aesthetic Realism, the philosophy founded by Eli Siegel in 1941, Koppelman's art, teaching, and his work as an Aesthetic Realism consultant speaking to people about their lives were grounded in the principle stated by Siegel: -hmmm, tricky sentence - the subject goes from Koppelman to K's art after the comma. Aligning the subjects would be better...but maybe not possible..no alternatives are jumping out at me...also, try and avoid using a word (in this case 'Siegel' twice in the one sentence)

Conversely you could align the subjects of lead para 3 as the second sentence is more about his art than him.....

I rewrote the beginning of the second lead paragraph per your comment. Waiting for the page creator to also weigh in. Yoninah (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to leave Museo Napoleonico as a redlink...maybe I'll do it myself.

The prose is pretty engaging...I found myself reading it and forgetting to find things to correct...I suppose because there aren't any prose-clangers I can see...

On comprehensiveness...one possible deficit that might be good to expand on is that when I read it I still don't get much of a sense of Aesthetic Realism and how it connects with its work, other than the article saying it does. Any way the Aesthetic Realism and artistic development section could be expanded with rationale etc I think would help the article

Trouver: please address this point. Yoninah (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking good.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments. Re comprehensiveness, I can expand & give rationale etc tomorrow. Checking sources to avoid "original research" and will post my suggestion on this page tomorrow.Trouver (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great - looking forward to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, it was a little more difficult than I expected. The ideas are big, and it is hard to make them clear swifly. I have citations to support this. I suggest adding the following after the first three sentences of the first paragraph, in place of the rest of the paragraph, in Aesthetic Realism and artistic development:

About his study of Aesthetic Realism, Koppelman wrote: “I learned that what I wanted to do as an artist was what I had to do as a person, as a husband: put opposites together”<Rome, p.28>. His works are allegories about the problems of life: how to integrate pride and humility, generosity and selfishness, the old and new, rigidity and flexibility, idealism and cynicism. According to Aesthetic Realism, all art arises from the hope to respect and honestly like the world, which is the deepest desire of every person. There is, however, an opposing desire for contempt, based on the feeling that opposites have to fight, and that oneself is added to by lessening the value of other things. Koppelman’s art is permeated with his understanding of this conflict.[16] He often quoted a poem by Siegel which, he said, describes the “organic relation of technique and ethics” in art:

“The Print”

Can dark and light

Show wrong and right?

—And round and straight

Show love and hate?

—And dim and clear

Show hope and fear?

Hopefully, everything said in the rest of the article about opposites will have more meaning because of these sentences and the poem. I look forward to your comments.Trouver (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thinks this goes towards what I was envisioning. I recommend adding it. However, I still don't get how this comes out in practice..is it merely juxtaposing unusual or opposite items then? A practical example might be good here...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, putting opposites together is not simply juxtaposing them & it's not hot + cold = lukewarm. It's more subtle--like the way hot & cold work together in the human body to maintain a healthy 98°. Another everyday example is criticism that is kind or exact, which I think is going on here. You want a good clear example as to his art, and he has lots of these. Just give me a little time because of commitments in real life. Thanks for your comments.Trouver (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to wait and keep this here as the article is good and this last link is a key point, so take your time to do it justice ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- great, well done. The last little bit is good as it is about why he does what he does etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]