Art was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts articles
Richard Wollheim's distinctions of views on art as either 'realistic', 'objectivistic' or 'relativistic' may be said to be pertaining to, even symptomatic of the predominantly anglo-american school of Analytic philosophy, as opposed to the Continental philosophy; the proposed other major stream in the currents of occidental philosophy. If this is acknowledged it is problematic that the wikipedia article on art, in its current reading, frames art in this fashion. That is predominantly because of the current position in the article of Richard Wollheims distinctions . I will argue that it is at odds with the neutrality policy. In the extension of this argument, one should seek to adapt the habit of adressing the cultural position of information. This can be done in a simple and elegant way without problem; for instant. in the context of analytical philosophy, Richard Wollheim suggests three different views on arts practices...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xact (talk • contribs) 12:16, 23 September 2009
What should we do about the length of the lead section?[edit]
I noticed that the lead section of the article is supposedly "too short to adequately summarize the key points." I was wondering if a viable solution could be to move at least half or all of the second paragraph into the first, since I don't think there's much we can actually "add" to the lead. The second paragraph also (at least in my opinion) summarizes what art is generally well, so I'd think it'd work fine. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, maybe. The 2nd lead para is rather too long imo. I don't normally like "overview" sections, but here it may work. If we agree here, we could just remove the tag - I could live with that. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to make sure, you're suggesting that we combine segments of the second lead paragraph into the first and then remove the tag, right? TheBrickGraphic (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or just remove it. The "globalize" one too maybe - there was nothing on talk. Tags aren't sacred. Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Referencing and citation: not checked
To-do list for Art:
