Talk:Composition with Red, Blue and Yellow

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 articles

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

This looks like a school project

This article is not encyclopaedic in tone, and the structure is fairly disorganized. Furthermore, this article is full of personal opinion, which unless cited from a reputable source has no place here. While I do not not possess the necessary expertise to do so, I am recommending a full rewrite. Deelay58 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I second that. In addition, a very large part of the article is about Mondrian, De Stijl, etc. and thus off topic. Mondrian's development should not be repeated again and again for every article about one of his paintings. Superp (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition, the image included in the article is of a painting in the Kunsthaus Zürich, not the National Museum of Serbia. The latter holds another Mondrian though. Superp (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I second everything said. Would it be fine if I at least change the year to 1930 and the reference link URL to https://kunsthaus.ch/ ? I am kind of a newbie here. EzequielBirman (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the painting?

The last three fourths of the article are about Mondrian and De Stijl. Is there anything else that can be written about the painting itself?

Rewrite

I removed essentially the whole article. I was planning to rewrite it in an encyclopaedic tone, but it became pointless to attempt it. Most of the text was not about the painting at all, and the text that was, was simply someone's personal opinion. It would be nice to have a decent article about this painting, but the previous text was completely unsalvageable. Nevgerid (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing I thought about keeping, a mention of the De Stijl movement, is cited to a source which may once have been reliable but is now a spam site supposedly selling steroids. Nevgerid (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a more careful reading of the content you removed, I realized that I'd overgeneralized from that first sentence being useful. I now agree with you that it was otherwise entirely unencyclopedic; sorry for the hasty revert. A better source for De Stijl might be here. Rusalkii (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]