Talk:Portrait of a Musician/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 03:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

This article has great images and I like the grouping. I am looking forward to reviewing this article about the mysterious painting. My approach is to review the article section-by-section, make minor edits (links, punctuation, cite order, etc. - to save time for both of us), and then assess the article against GA criteria. Feel free to revert minor edits if you disagree. Please also jump in with comments and questions at any point.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

• This section looks good. I may have something to add after I read the article, but good so far!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Composition

• I made a minor change: minor edit "with exception to" --> "with the exception of"–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The musician

• I made a minor edit for cite order. Here are my edits for this and the preceding section.
• Since an opinion is expressed, what do you think about something like "According to art historian Laure Fagnart," before These colors are due to poor conservation and some repainting and are likely not the original colors. The doublet was probably originally dark red and the stole bright yellow.[13]–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

DoneAza24 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The musical score

• I am not sure that various (distinctly different) is the right word in This has not stopped various scholars from hypothesizing as to what the letters say, often using their interpretations to support their theory of the musician's identity.[16] It reads fine to say "some scholars" or "a few scholars", if it's just a few.
• Regarding "on the other hand" in The notes on the other hand have offered little clarity into the painting, other than strongly suggesting the subject to be a musician.[17] I don't think it is needed and it's a bit confusing (what does on the other hand mean in this instance? There's little clarity + suggestion of it being a musician)
• If there's little clarity from the notes, how do we know: The notes are also undoubtedly in measural notation and therefore likely representative of polyphonic music.[12] I suggest again, an "According to Fagnart," before the sentence (without her first name for the second use).
• I made a minor edit and added a link for mensural notation here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Done except: We know that the notes are in polyphonic music because you can see 3 different lines on the paper, with different singing part names, should I add this in? Aza24 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Ahhh. Only if you wish - and have a source for that. Thanks for the edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, I think it's probably fine how it is then. Aza24 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Attribution and date

• I made these edits for cite order.
• The content looks good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Ambrosiana

• For Its whereabouts before are unknown but it was listed with a description of being..., perhaps something like: "Its previous whereabouts are unknown, but it was listed with a description of" (i.e., "being" is not needed, a little clearer to say "previous whereabouts").
• I added a comma after "de Predis".–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Done Aza24 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible subjects

This paragraph looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Franchinus Gaffurius

• Regarding The theory has been disproven from the treatise being published at least 18 years after the painting's creation and no physical descriptions from Gaffurius' lifetime matching the Portrait of a Musician.[22], two potential edits:

• Perhaps edit to "The theory has been disproven because the treatise was published at least 18 years after the painting's creation and there are no physical descriptions from Gaffurius' lifetime matching the Portrait of a Musician.[22]
• Or, "The treatise was published at least 18 years after the painting's creation, however, and there are no physical descriptions from Gaffurius' lifetime matching the Portrait of a Musician.[22]" with the removal of "The theory has been disproven."

• Regarding Also, the issues of Gaffurius, a priest, not being depicted in clerical robe and that Gaffurius would have been in his mid thirties at the time, make him likely too old to be the young man of the painting.[27][28], perhaps edits to something like: "Also, the subject of the painting was not depicted in a clerical robe, which would have properly identified him as a priest, and the subject of the painting is a young man; Gaffurius would have been in his mid thirties at the time.[27][28]"–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Done Aza24 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Atalante Migliorotti

• Perhaps add "was published" to Since Pietro C. Marani's theory in 2000,[29] to state: "Since Pietro C. Marani's theory was published in 2000,[29]". Another option is to change "in" to "of".
• Regarding Furthermore, Leonardo is thought to have taught Migliarotti the lute and lyre and known to be friends.[11][21][30] - "Furthermore" seems out of place since it just followed one sentence / idea. I think it would be better to say "The two men were known to be friends, and Leonardo is thought to have taught Migliarotti the lute and lyre." Because it's more powerful to say they were known to be friends.
• Perhaps edit to This has been considered by many to have been some kind of study or start of the later Portrait of a Musician.[24][9][7] to "This has been considered by many to have been a study for the later Portrait of a Musician.[24][9][7] It reads better to replace "some kind of" with "a"... and it didn't become Portrait of a Musician, so it is better not to have state that it was the "start of" this painting.
• I suggest removing "these are by no means outstanding issues, as" from However, these are by no means outstanding issues, as Leonardo was known to make numerous revisions and often took many years to complete a painting.[31][32][n 7] it is unnecessary, is crisper without it, and may be an original thought.
• Perhaps personal preference, I would add "subject" to the end of Migliarotti is now considered the most likely.[10][24][27]
• I made one minor edit to cite order.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Done except: I'm confused what your 2nd comment about This has been considered by many to have been some kind of study or start of the later Portrait of a Musician.[24][9][7] is? Could you clarify a little? Aza24 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the completed edits. Regarding the "study" - that makes sense, because that's a common approach - to create studies. If it was the start of the Portrait of a Musician - then it would be this painting, or perhaps Portrait of a Musician (2) because this painting is named Portrait of a Musician.

To leave that part in perhaps, "This has been considered by many to have been a study or another attempt to create Portrait of a Musician."–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Or, maybe "to start" instead of "to create".–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, I fixed it and used "to start." Aza24 (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Josquin des Prez

• Regarding Suzanne Clercx-Lejeune proposed that the words on the musical score where the abbreviations of "Cont," "Cantuz," and "A Z" appear in reference to the words "Contratenor," "Cantuz" and Altuz. There's a bit of confusion about which are the abbreviations. Perhaps something like "Suzanne Clercx-Lejeune proposed that the words on the musical score are the abbreviations "Cont," "Cantuz," and "A Z" of the words "Contratenor," "Cantuz" and Altuz."
• This sentence needs a bit of editing: This theory has been strongly discredited as the notation in the painting being largely illegible, while many composers of the time were writing the same forms in this manner.[22] perhaps to "This theory has been strongly discredited as the notation in the painting is largely illegible, and many composers of the time were writing music in this manner.[22]" "And" seems more appropriate than "while", because it's a new thought / idea.
• Perhaps shorten Additionally, this theory runs into the same issues as those of Gaffurius', in that Josquin was also a priest in his mid 30s at the time, making the young man depicted without clerical robes unlikely to be Josquin.[34] to something like "Additionally, like Gaffurius, Josquin was a priest in his mid 30s, and therefore unlikely to be the subject of this painting.[34]–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Done Aza24 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, looks good. Thanks–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Gaspar van Weerbeke

• I made two minor edits here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Others

• I made minor edits and a cite order fix here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Interpretation

• Regarding A number believed that the tension in the subject's face is due to intense thought on music that was either just performed, about to be performed or being performed., perhaps it could be tightened up a bit. "A number believed that the tension in the subject's face is intense because he is in the process of performing."
• Regarding The painting has also been proposed as representative of Leonardo's self proclaimed ideology in the superiority of painting over other art forms like poetry, sculpture and music. perhaps "The painting has also been seen to be a representation of Leonardo's self proclaimed ideology of the superiority of painting over other art forms like poetry, sculpture and music."
• Removed the hyphen in "har-mony" in the quote.
• I made these minor edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Done except: While I understand why you removed the hyphen, I wonder if this is necessary, as this quote is directly copied from the source. I only ask because the word "re-garded" is also like this, presumably because this is how it is in the original, I got the quote itself from a secondary source, rather than Leonardo's actual manuscripts from translation reasons. DO you think the hyphens should be taken out? Because if so the the "regarded" probably should be as well? Aza24 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the hyphen because harmony is spelled above without the hyphen, and I found a copy of the verbiage where the hyphen was there because the word was split across two rows. Wasn't your original source actually a translation? It is ok to edit quotes to correct a minor error. If you need the Wikipedia guideline for that, let me know and I will look for it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. I had been on the edge about that quote because I wasn't sure if making minor edits in quotes was something people did. No guideline needed, I'll take your word for it. Aza24 (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Notes

• I made this edit to note 2, simplying the wording and correcting cite order.
• I merged duplicate notes here.
• And edited a note here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• According to MOS:SURNAME, the first name should be the most common use of the person's name. After that, the name should be the last name, which in this case would be da Vinci (or Da Vinci at the start of a sentence), right? Is there a reason that you used Leonardo throughout the article?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• It seems there is a bit of WP:OVERLINKING. Generally an article is just linked at the first instance, or the introduction and the first instance in the body of the article. See Ludovico Sforza, for instance, which is linked four times. I personally don't have a problem with it, but there are some people who have a hard time reading articles with a lot of links.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• There seems to be three ways that people mentioned in the article are referred to after the initial instance of their name: Use the full name (e.g., Suzanne Clercx-Lejeune), use the first name (e.g., Josquin, Leonardo), or use the last name (e.g., Gaffurius). Generally, the approach is to use the surname... and it is very rare to use the first name (unless the article mentions people with the same surname). Whether you choose to use surname or full name, it should be a consistent approach throughout.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I really appreciate your comments, they are extremely informative and helpful, and I agree with pretty much everything you've suggested and will make the changes accordingly in the next hour or so. As to your general comments the overlinking is definitely a problem I overlooked. (Pun intended! - But I'll go through the article for that as well)

You're funny! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed some 3rd instances of links in these edits. Between your changes and mine, this looks good and is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the full names: the times I do refer to people by full names is always when I first refer to them in the article. Except Ludovico Sforza, I should probably be referring to him after his initial mention as Ludovico, as explained below:

Concerning the last name vs first name: I feel I should explain this last name business you're mentioning, because it really is a common misconception. While it is typical to refer to people by their last name in articles, Leonardo and Josquin don't exactly have "last names" in the modern sense. Referring to Leonardo as "da Vinci" is like referring to Joan of Arc as "of Arc," Vinci is simply his town of origin. That's why you almost always here Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael called by their "first names" even in the same sentence as Picasso, Monet and Gauguin. (Michelangelo and Raphael's last names also fall into this category of simply being their town of origin) To be complete transparent, I'm not 100% confident on my explanation, especially with Josquin as his last name is not his town of origin but supposably an "alternative name." But I am confident about the first names as every (serious) academic source refers to Leonardo and Josquin this way, including their respective wikipedia pages. (Leonardo - Good article) (Josquin - Featured) (Ludovico is also referred to by his first name in his article) I hope this makes sense and I'll add that if this message came of as arrogant in any way, that was not my intention, I simply felt that I should explain thoroughly, because you're right, otherwise this would be a big mistake throughout the article! Aza24 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Since there is a precedent for Leonardo and Josquin in their main articles, that makes sense - and really should be followed. (Side note: Vincent van Gogh is known as van Gogh throughout his articles, but van also means "of". I have worked on family genealogies back to the 12th century and we are all named after something: places most frequently, occupation, or other distinguishing factors [hair color for my maiden name]. And, he is just as well known as da Vinci as Leonardo.) BUT: My key thinking is to have some sort of consistent approach so if you have a consistent approach for Leonardo and Josquin -- and then for everyone else to use their surname or their full name, that's cool with me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Added "or their full name".–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that there is a 3rd person known by their first name, Caspar. And, the full name is used unless it's in the section about that person, then the surname is used for the full-name people. It works, it would be too much to have the full name stated throughout one section. So, I consider this  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

• The article is generally well-written and generally conforms to WP:MOS guidelines. There are some suggestions for wording changes and the use of last/first/full name throughout the article, as well as overlinking.

These have been taken care of and are  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article covers the major aspects (3a) and is focused (3b). It is neutral (4) and stable (5)... and is factually accurate and verifiable (2a, 2b, 2c).–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• There is no evidence of copyright violations (2d). The images are properly tagged, are relevant, and have proper captions (6a, 6b).–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the article has passed it's GA status. You have an open question about the study / another version of the Portrait of a Musician, which I answered. Please resolve as you would like, or not. It does not affect the article passing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As we discussed above, you completed that item. Thanks so much, you made this an easy review. Great job on a very interesting article!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)