Talk:Edson Chagas

Notes

• It looks like the Mousse mag article on the 2013 Venice show is a copy of a press release czar 22:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edson Chagas/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 22:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The phrase Chagas is best known for in the lead is somewhat worrisome; everything else is fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The entirety of the career-based content is from 2013-2015. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Chagas appears to currently be displaying his (very well-received) work from 2013-2015; I've found a bunch of references such as but nothing that needs to be added to the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images at all. Are there any public domain images of this person or any of his artwork? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC) As per discussion, there are no images that can reasonably be added. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

@Power~enwiki, thanks! The 2013 Biennial made his career as far as the sourcing goes. I made a reasonable attempt at offline and non-English sources and these were the sources that I found. I contacted galleries and several photographers in February for photos but came back empty-handed. But yeah, it's hard to get open permissions for the medium that is one's livelihood. czar 22:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I would expect that a photo of him (as opposed to his work) could meet fair-use standards. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. It's very reasonable that none of his work would be licensed in a way to allow inclusion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

WP doesn't allow fair use photos of living people per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1 (that it's physically possible for someone to track down the individual and take a photo), more explicitly in second paragraph of Wikipedia:Non-free content lede). A fair use image of his work would be reasonable if such a work was described in the prose and the lack of its visualization would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. Or, as is the case, the reader can just follow the link to his portfolio. czar 23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll do a check for other (more recent) references as well as another read-through before approving this, but I don't see any other changes that are necessary right now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I do expect this article to evolve considerably over time, but don't see any issues with it now. (the lead section could possibly be split into two paragraphs but I'm not sure that's better). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because it does not have any post-2015 information. Is anyone interested in updating this article or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see this notice but I will update the article. I don't believe there has been much to update since the 2016 (not 2015) sources, since that was his prolific period from which he continues to show the same work. czar 18:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Edson Chagas

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Article does not contain post-2015 information on the subject, and thus does not fulfil WP:GA? 3a in covering all major aspects of the biography. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720, what major aspects of the biography are missing that are covered in reliable, secondary sources? Also the article is updated through 2016, not 2015. There is not a lot of post-2016 activity so that will take little time to improve. czar 17:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay we're up to date with recent exhibitions. Let me know if there's anything more you were expecting. czar 18:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Czar: Thanks for doing this. I will also search for sources later, but I will be limited because I do not speak Portuguese. I think the article's formatting can be a little better: the "Early life" is quite short, then there's a long "Career" section, then a short "Personal life" section. Perhaps the "Career" section could be split up with level 3 headings, or some information from Careers can be moved to other sections (maybe change the first heading to "Early life and early career"?). I am also open to other suggestions. I also think the lead is quite short: with the added information, can the lead be expanded a little bit? Z1720 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Expanded the lede, though I think it covered the basics of the article. Fixed the headings, which were changed in a drive-by edit today. czar 02:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720, any further gaps or action needed? czar 03:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Czar: I removed too much detail of the artist's exhibitions and reception of these as too much detail. If the exhibitions are notable (which I think some are) they can be moved to those articles when created. I think the article is missing critical commentary of Chagas's artistic style or consistent themes in his work: this is different from critical commentary on an exhibition, which only talks about the themes of one work which might not carry over into others. This will add an extra section or two after the biography. Z1720 (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  If the Reception is specifically related to his portion of a group show, why would it be off-topic? It's commentary on his career.

  I've included all sources I've found that cover his work. Not all living artists have retrospective assessments of themes across their work. czar 14:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Czar: I think a general statement about an exhibit's reception is not off-topic, but several comments about the exhibition with quotes is a bit excessive. Totally understand about the retrospective: when I've written about choreographers, sometimes a source about a specific work will say something like "in their typical artistic style, the choreographer added such-and-such theme to the piece". This would be a statement that could be cited in their artistic style, as the source has identified something specific as being part of the artist's overall work, even though it is in the context of comparing a specific piece to their overall work. I'm happy to take a look at some sources if the potential for that information might be in there. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Dug up a German-language interview and added a summative statement on his style (though it's not so different from what was already there and in the lede). Feel free to take a look for sources if you see anything major missing. czar 12:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hi. I approve of Z1720's removal of so much detail on reception of exhibitions. However, regarding Z1720's comment that "If the exhibitions are notable (which I think some are) they can be moved to those articles when created", we're very unlikely to create articles on individual exhibitions. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: checking back—any further comments? czar 13:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Czar: Not sure if my comment about finding information about their artistic style in reviews was addressed: I would expect an article about an artist to have a section that describes their artistic style. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't find discussion of artistic style in reliable sources, only descriptive contents of his works. You're welcome to look if you'd like. czar 02:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

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.