Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September Morn/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

September Morn edit

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a painting which was of huge social impact in the United States when reproductions were first exhibited in 1913, but has since been essentially forgotten. A note, however, that sources are often conflicting; even such seemingly simple issues as when the painting first reached the US have more than one version, supported by equally reliable sources.. This article was PRed by Tim riley, SchroCat, Cassianto, Wehwalt, and Sarastro1. I believe it is a neutral and thorough treatment of this subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – a fine article on what has latterly been a controversial topic. This is beautifully balanced, and a credit to Wikipedia. Tim riley talk 01:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all the help, Tim and Wehwalt! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "From 1913, reproductions of the painting caused in the United States.": ? - Dank (push to talk) 01:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After fourteen years on display at the Met and other institutions, it was put into storage. As of 2014 it is not on display.": Most readers are going to come to the conclusion it's never been on display since 1971, even though you don't specifically say that, because this is a narrative about the painting ... readers will expect that if something significant happened, you'd be telling them. But later you write: "it had been hung in the museum around 2011".
  • Other than that bit, the lead section was all I looked at. I did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mark Miller edit

This is an excellent article and has improved greatly since I last looked at it, however you know my concern over at least one particular passage and the source used to cite it. In the "Acquisition by the Metropolitan Museum of Art" section the line: "In September 2014, the Met's website listed the painting as not on display...". My concern is the wording used with the source not actually supporting the dating used and is an arbitrary date given for the moment when the website was accessed for the information. The website/source does not mention a date as to this particular claim. There are versins of the source used. One is a cached/archived record of the website that was cached by WebCite (an outside archive company not related to the museum or website as the source). It is this actual site (that is still available online) that is the actual source, not the cached record made by a private company. The only fact that can be summarized here is the fact that the: "Met's website states the painting is not on display". It seems to be an matter of the source not really supporting the claim of dating and simply writing it as above seems to be the best route here.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consensus was here, and in other discussions, that the "as of" wording was proper. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the concern I stated. We discussed this at length and no consensus was formed about the issue that I recall. How would you like to handle the issue now?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simple enough: What do other reviewers think? Or, once we get a source review, the source reviewer? I've already told you what I think, and you've told me what you think. The question is just one of consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds good. Other than that I support this FAC.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm understanding the point correctly, WP:CRYSTALBALL is policy, and one interpretation of that policy is the guideline WP:DATED. If we say "Met's website states the painting is not on display", then next month, we're lying ... we don't actually have any evidence (yet) that it's not on display next month, just this month. On another point: the lead says "As of 2014 it is not on display", and that seems to come from "In September 2014, the Met's website listed the painting as not on display, though it had been hung in the museum around 2011." I don't think that a ref that shows that the picture wasn't up in September 2014 proves that it wasn't up at all in 2014 (although of course, if you have snapshots of the website at other times this year, that would work). Perhaps the lead should say "As of September 2014 ...". - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To base the interpretation of policy on WP:DATED it states: "..to signal the time-dependence of the information.". How is the information time dependent if the source makes no mention of time? Where does the "September" in "As of September.." come from? From an outside web snapshot. We need an actual reliable source to make a claim of something like "As of (or "since") [this date]]" for any additional policy or guideline to take effect beyond making sure the reference supports the claim and that the summary of the source is based accurately off the content from that source. Even using simple math requires numbers given by a reliable source or how can we mention it? This is what confuses me in this situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree with my first two sentences? If not, what's my mistake? - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm absolutely fine with using {{As of}} 2014. Mark's point, and it was brought up a while back, is that the Met's website itself does not explicitly give a date, whereas we are using it to support an as of statement with a definite time frame. The date portion would be supported by something that does have a definite time frame i.e. the webcite archive. However, Mark takes issue with that, because he thinks WebCite is not an RS, and/or that the date has to be on the Met's website itself to be cited. I've opposed this, both because I think it is very fine hair splitting with what WP:OR and WP:RS say (the same level of obviousness as WP:CALC and WP:TRANSCRIPTION, IMHO) and because a simple statement that the website says it is not on display (or that the painting is not on display) is liable to date (and thus make the article incorrect). That's my understanding, at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is, not just a weak sourcing, but creating the source (the WebCite web Cache/archive that was created on that date) that is added on top of the original source to cite, not just the actual fact that the webcite states it is not on view, but give an arbitrary dating for the as of that...as a reference point, has no encyclopedic value put to slide a gauge to a date and proclaim that as a date to say "as of" when the facts and situation don't seem to call for it. Why can't that simply say "While owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it is not displayed". Why are we even narrating what the museum says on the source...why not just summarize the facts. It seems less engaging as prose to try and...almost bend the sentence to reference the web site itself as stating something just to create the time-dependency. It may no be a form of OR, but it seems like unnecessary dating as the source date is fabricated by the time of the archiving of an outside entity not involved with the source and not RS. It seems un-encyclopedic to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this obsessive discussion is completely ridiculous. On a particular date their website states it was not displayed. That's all you can and should say. You certainly can't say "While owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it is not displayed" (even apart from the wierd grammar). They may have displayed it in the past, & might put it on display next week. Let's move on. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I disagree. Look, I have never seen this done before on Wikipedia where a source is dated by the day an editor checked it without a reference making the claim. But I am not resisting the fact that editors accept this. I just don't agree. But I support this FAC as it is a very well done article. It isn't perfect, but it is very good.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (copyright)

  • All images are PD and have sufficient source and author info. Source links all active.
  • One small question about the gallery: the first 3 images aren't clickable for full view or more image information (on a 1920 x 1080 screen with Windows and FF). Can the captions be trimmed a bit? First one doesn't really need "September Morn", the next 2 would be OK without the quoted text. GermanJoe (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Educational, informative, well written and comprehensive are just four reasons as to why this article should be promoted to FA in my view. This made for some happy holiday reading for me! Cassiantotalk 11:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's not just me that's branching out. I like to find a nitpick if only to show that I've read the article, but your skill and the previous reviewers have left me no crumbs. Great stuff Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • <blush> Thanks Jim. Glad you enjoyed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Over the last three months I've watched this article expand from a stub to the comprehensive, well written, balanced account now presented. It is neutral and successfully conveys what some perceived as a controversial subject in an educational and encyclopaedic manner. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, SP, especially for catching those out of order references as the article grew. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS review by SandyGeorgia edit

Is anyone still reviewing for crit 2, compliance with Wikipedia's house style? Samples only as they caught my eye, check throughout needed:

  1. WP:NBSP. On my screen 7 million is wrapping. Also, c. 1913. And others ... please review throughout ... anywhere a word might be split from a number on a screen should use nbsp to avoid wrap.
  2. WP:MOSNUM. 163.8×216.5 centimetres (64.5×85.2 in), spaces around the x are shown correctly in the infobox, but not in the text.
  3. Most of the short citations end in a period, so they should all end in a period (consistency in citations).
  4. MOS:LQ query, samples only ... he had boasted "If I had never seen it from the day I put down my brushes after painting it, I could make a perfect copy". However, not having copyrighted the work, he did not receive any royalties from the marketing frenzy in the United States; he recalled, "Nobody was thoughtful enough even to send me a box of cigars".

Separately:

  • he gave a price of 50,000 francs ($10,000) – more than he expected anybody to pay. $10,000 in what year's dollars? then or now ? conversion used?
  • valued at an estimated $30,000 (in what year's dollars? then or now? conversion used?)

I will try to find time to check more thoroughly later, but these minor issues should be easily addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Sandy, thanks for the comments. #3 is generally (or, at least, in my experience) part of the image review, though it appears to have been skipped here; I'll do it. You are correct about #1 and $4, I'll go through them now too. The spaces in #2 apparently had trouble with screenreaders; Graham87 could probably explain that better. Both prices are in contemporary dollars (I thought that implicit agreement was that, unless otherwise stated, prices are contemporary). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You lost me on #3 being related to an image? Citations, not captions? We'll see how Graham responds (he's Da Man on accessibility and screen readers), but see The Raft of the Medusa. Not sure on the implicit assumption of then dollars, nor do I know where to find that in MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I found something at WP:MOSNUM that may be helpful:
  • In some cases it may be appropriate to provide a conversion accounting for inflation or deflation over time. See {{Inflation}} and {{Inflation-fn}}.
So, for example, I just read a Mike Christie article about very old science fiction magazines, and it discusses something like (don't quote me, this is from memory) them costing a nickel. In that case, the context makes it clear that it is then-dollars, so I didn't ask the question. But in this article's case, it is not so clear to me. Also, did we do the convert from francs to $, or did the source? And do we know if the sources are giving then-current dollars, or something else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right about #3, my apologies. I'll have a look tomorrow to see if something is missing (that's usually part of the source review, which hasn't happened here yet). The 50k francs is from this source, and the 10k is from this one. Prices appear to be contemporary (one is only two years separate from the exhibition, so any difference would be minor). "May" is not a requirement for present day values, but including such values should be doable for US currency. Something like this then? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My change to the convert template wasn't an accessibility issue, but rather because I couldn't stand the repeated units in the original template which used "x" as the separator parameter like this: 163.8 by 216.5 centimetres (64.5 in × 85.2 in). I changed it to use "*" on the advice of this thread at Template talk:Convert, so it appeared like this: 163.8×216.5 centimetres (64.5×85.2 in). I've just changed it to use "by", so the measurement appears like 163.8 by 216.5 centimetres (64.5 by 85.2 in). Graham87 01:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification, Graham. That looks good too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Graham! Crisco, I'll unwatch now, then, and leave it to you to sort out currency issues. I'm wondering if @Ceoil:, @Modernist:, @JNW:, @Kafka Liz: or any other of the FA art cabal have looked at the article? (Always good to have our resident topic experts on board!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, thanks Sandy. I've added the conversion template (which is updated automatically, AFAIK, so I don't need to use "As of"). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As a peer reviewer, my comments were dealt with admirably at the time. Since then the changes have only strengthened the article further. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Direct quotes should be cited in the lead even if cited again later
  • Notes r and s are returning errors
  • Adams title should use endash not hyphen
  • Check alphabetization of Works cited - Wearies is out of place. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Nikki, I think I got everything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget850 edit

  • Broken ref link: Two citation templates use {{SfnRef|The Pittsburgh Press 1913}} thus there are duplicate ids and the links are going to be ambiguous.
  • Comment (not a showstopper): The uses of {{sfn}} work. But there are proper uses like {{sfn|Monfried|1971|p=9}} and odd uses like {{sfn|San Francisco Call 1913}} where the date is in the author field.
  • Comment (consistency, not a showstopper): For some reason there are also uses of {{harvnb}} such as {{harvnb|Witchard|2009|pp=126, 186}}.

--  Gadget850 talk 14:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed the first point. Last two points: standard in articles I write. Harv for footnotes (reduces the number of clicks for readers) and for references with "quoted in" or other necessary additions. Renders the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ewulp edit

The only glaring flaw I'm finding here is in the "New York" section of "Controversy and popularity", where the work on display in the window of Braun and Company is described first as a painting, then in the second paragraph as a print. A footnote explains that sources differ on whether the work displayed was the original or a print, and cites Brauer (2011) and The Tuscaloosa News (1937) as identifying the work on display as the original painting. But this is erroneous in the case of The Tuscaloosa News, where the picture in the art dealer's window is identified as a reproduction. The Sun (May 14, 1913) describes the picture as "less than a foot high", and quotes Ortiz: "The picture in the window will not be removed even by a customer anxious to buy it. The copy in the window now is the only one we have", which suggests a print, not the original. When Ortiz was interviewed by Middletown Times Herald (March 16, 1933), the work was again identified as a print, and Taylor (2012) calls it a print. I haven't read Brauer, but unless she offers compelling evidence that Ortiz was misquoted or confused about the work on display in his window, I think we should assume she got this detail wrong. Ewulp (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not just Brauer (though I thank you for identifying that mistake with the Tuscaloosa News). The Met's catalogue states "soon after it was finished it was sent off to this country to find a purchaser. When it was displayed in the window of an art dealer in New York, Anthony Comstock...". The 1935 Time article says "In May 1913, white-whiskered officious old Anthony Comstock was strolling along 46th Street in Manhattan when he was halted in his tracks by the shocking sight of the original painting of September Morn boldly displayed in the front window of Braun & Co." (emphasis mine). I agree that it was almost definitely (like, 99.999999% definitely) a print, but the sources are more ambiguous. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case a slight tweak of the text might be in order. Although the disagreement among sources is explained in a footnote, not everyone will read the note; and even if they do, the slipperiness regarding just what was in the NY dealer's window is likely to prove distracting—in any case, it was for me. Possibly the sentence beginning "Anthony Comstock, head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice and nationally recognized for his campaigns against "smut",[o] saw September Morn[p] on display..." could be rewritten as: " Anthony Comstock, head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice and nationally recognized for his campaigns against "smut",[o] saw September Morn—sources differ on whether it was the painting or a reproduction[p]— on display..." Then in the sentences that follow. "painting" could be replaced by "work" or "picture" wherever needed. For instance, the line that begins the section's third paragraph—"After two weeks, when the dealership had sold every print it had, Ortiz removed the painting"—is sourced to The Sun (June 27, 1913), which explicitly identifies the work that enraged Comstock as a print and describes Ortiz as removing the picture after every copy except one had been sold. Ewulp (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's resolved, and the article looks very good. Happy to Support for FAC. Ewulp (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Cant say I think much of the painting, but there is a very good story here, which meticulous research and an engaging writing style has brough to the fore. c/e'd about half the article, but it was light weight stuff. Impressed. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support and copyedit, Ceoil! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not sure if I'm allowed to support, as Ceoil already has, but I would like to. It's an excellent article - well-written and well researched. One thing that stuck out: "illuminated by a lighting which prominently interacts with the model and setting." - not sure I understand what is meant, and it's a bit of a clumsy construction. Is there a better way of saying this? Kafka Liz (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to admit it reads oddly to me too, partly because of the apparent redundancy (illuminated ... lighting). What about replacing "illuminated by a lighting" with "illuminated by the morning sun"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Went with "prominently lit by the morning sun". How's that? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 15

December 2014 (UTC)

This looks good to me. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, we can wrap this up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/September_Morn/archive1&oldid=1138471135"