Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Raft of the Medusa

< 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 SandyGeorgia 14:29, 24 January 2009 [1].

The Raft of the Medusa edit

Nominator(s): Modernist Ceoil JNW

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...It's an important painting by an important French Romantic painter who revolutionized painting in the early 19th century..and it is a milestone in art history. Thanks to Johnbod, Lithoderm, Kafka Liz, Outriggr, Yomangan, and Tyrenius....Modernist (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Medusa-contemporary engraving.jpg - Could we get some sort of reliable source for this image? Note that we have to be able to verify the information in this description according to WP:IUP. Currently, there is no way of doing that. Surely, one of the Raft of Medusa sources mentions this diagram and we could reference it here?
It is an illustration from the book. Noon, p. 75 shows an impression from the 1818 English 1st edn, but no doubt the plate was passed to all the printers. This image seems more worn, but if it is a copy from another plate it is a remarkably exact one. One doubts it is "by" Correard, though no doubt based on a drawing by him, & it may not be strictly an engraving - Noon is unhelpful on these points. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - (we changed the image)Modernist (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added more information to the new image. Awadewit (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gericault - study for Raft of the Medusa.jpg - This image does not seem to be all over the web (13 pages of Google image search turned up only Wikimedia versions). We need to at least list the museum which holds it, but having the online source as well would be best.
The file says ARTstor, so someone with access needs to check it. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

:::Unfortunately the entirety of ARTstor is Javascripted, so it is impossible to link to the location of the specific image. As the uploader, I can attest that that is the source of the image.... Lithoderm 16:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come on the image description page it doesn't list ARTstor as the source, though? What am I missing? Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry cmt relates to the one below! Litho - plse confirm you meant this too, and check the owner. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes, I did... I'm not sure where this one is from. Lithoderm 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this one, there is a stamp at bottom left saying "Musee de Besançon". Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - we changed the image to one with a better source...Modernist (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more information to the new image. Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:RaftMedusa7.jpg - A quick Google images search didn't turn up this image. We need to at least list the museum which holds this image, but having the online source as well would be best.
The file says ARTstor, so someone with access needs to check it. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the entirety of ARTstor is Javascripted, so it is impossible to link to the location of the specific image. As the uploader, I can attest that that is the source of the image.... Lithoderm 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ARTstor does not give the museum, and also lists it as "pencil on paper", which is obviously inaccurate... It looks like it was scanned from a book, because on the ARTstor version you can see the dot matrix... in the bottom left there is a mark that reads FG or TG or FC or TC, I really can't make it out... TG would be the obvious reading, but it could be a museum mark... Lithoderm 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - changed the image to one with a better source...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more information on the source. Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We added a new and better image of the raft with source and text...Modernist (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images in the "Influence" section are a little squished and are sandwiching the text. I mention this so that debate can ensue about the value of these images. :)

I also added information to most of the images, such as online sources, artist dates, and information about the paintings (there were a couple of incorrect descriptions). Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC) you.[reply]
My question re: the legacy section is whether we (including myself here) have been a bit enthusiastic. Any thoughts as to whether this section ought to be pared down, or is everything there essential? JNW (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I like the Manet, and seeing the painting at the Met..it seems a little gratuitous and maybe we can let the image go? Modernist (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and done. I think that the section is still unwieldy--more later. JNW (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<–– Alright, I can't help myself, because Wikipedia's public responsibility is more important than this article: Artstor's terms of use do not allow their database of images to be re-used on a GFDL project like Wikipedia. That is my common-sense reading — IANALawyer — do with it what you will, and hate me later :-). –Outriggr § 02:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - All ARTstor images were eliminated...Modernist (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we eliminated the ARTstor images, except for the detail of the ship on the horizon. The WMF's policy is to ignore any assertions of copyright on PD-art, but I suppose terms of use are another thing entirely... Lithoderm 05:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ARTstor is trying to claim a right they do not have, I believe. We can use these images. The digitization does not grant them a copyright over the image (just like digitized texts are not suddenly "owned" by the databases that provide them). Awadewit (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Awadewit. It amazes me that someone who has taken up fair-use image review which such zeal can suggest at the same time that we can ignore the terms of use of a closed institutional database. Surely the terms of use supercede claims about our right to re-use Artstor's holdings; if we access an Artstor image, we have agreed to limit our use of it to the personal and educational, and, unfortunately, this project is licensed in such a way that we don't get the "educational" card. Would you take your argument to the logical conclusion, that it is within our remit to upload to Wikimedia Commons every (pre-whatever-year) image contained in that database? That's very bold, and I would never wish to put forth Wikipedia as a petty thief that ignores other institutions' policies while insisting on the principles embedded its own. I wonder if this particular case has ever been examined on Commons. –Outriggr § 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foundation policy is clear that we should uphold the use of PD images, notwithstanding attempts by institutions to thwart this. This is the case, for example, with museums that have artworks out of copyright and forbid photographs to be taken on the premises, only releasing their own reproductions as copyright material. The Foundation statement is that this is an attempt to thwart the proper free use of such PD images, and they are therefore allowable on Wikimedia projects, despite the museums' assertions of copyright. Artstor would seem to be an identical case. Ty 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, friendly neighborhood Wikimedia Commons admin dropping by here. The relevant pages are Commons:Licensing and Commons:Derivative works. Awadewit is quite correct. DurovaCharge! 04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foundation statement: The position of the WMF. Ty 05:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but these policies don't address the heart of the matter; indeed Artstor does not seem an "identical case" to me, because Artstor does not assert copyright. They require that you abide by certain terms of use if you use their service, and this supercedes the public domain aspect, because you can't access the image without agreeing to the terms. I think it's deplorable, and dangerous, that Wikipedia will not respect another institution's legal terms of service. Some of Artstor's reproductions are hardly slavish and have had considerable "reproductive effort" put into them. We are peers within the community that educates and provides access to knowledge, and we have to act responsibly with peers even when they play by different rules. Anyway, upload all the purloined pics you want and let the lawyers sort it out, I suppose. –Outriggr § 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good thing that there are those of us that care about the public domain, which clearly you do not. You would let any profit-seeking corporation claim that they can bring public domain works back under legal protection (they can't actually claim copyright, so they have now started to claim an illegitimate "terms of use"). Well, I, along with Wikipedia, will fight that kind of greed. Without us, there would be public domain left. And, frankly, we are not peers with the profit-driven corporations that produce these databases (we are a non-profit). I've seen enough of their inner workings to know that they are not working for the benefit of their users. Awadewit (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I love the public domain, and I'm rather insulted that you'd suggest otherwise. (Here are my commons contributions.) Do I look for any possible excuse under Wikipedia policy to ignore complex issues related to the public domain? No.
Artstor is non-profit: see [2]. So there's no greed, I don't think, and I don't think you've done your research. Johnbod, below, adds a rather pragmatic addition to one point I'm trying to make here: the zeal to limit fair-use images unless one can supply a "rationale" which is never "rational" (good) enough is misplaced, and of little pragmatic consequence to Wikipedia, compared to the (hypothetical) repeated uploading of content from a legal entity in violation of its terms. As Johnbod implies, much of the fair-use busywork is in response to rather imaginary legal concerns—meanwhile we have the same group advocating taking content from a private, non-profit institution that has a considerable investment in its content, and certainly the potential legal ramifications are much less imaginary in this case. I'll end my debate here. –Outriggr § 01:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever signed on to ARTstor and uploaded the images here is certainly in breach of ARTstor's terms & conditions. I rather doubt myself that the Foundation's policy allows us or Commons to retain material so received. Also having some personal experience of this area, I would say that the chances of getting a lawyer's letter from ARTstor are far higher than in most of the far-fetched scenarios round non-free images beloved of the WP image people. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reconfirm - we are not using any ARTstor images...Modernist (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth the images that I changed actually didn't have sources and although I presumed they were ARTstor images, like this great image that I reluctantly let go [3]. I went with the current PD images that do have sources...Modernist (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoever is interrupting and striking my comments, please stop. It makes it very hard to determine what has actually been done. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not aimed at anyone but I'm thinking now; whatever. It's actually very difficult to balance the ratio of text and images in an article with this many images. How many add value and are capable of containing meaningful citable captions vs. how many are just decorative is the yard stick I'd hold, and just draw the line there. I'd hate this FAC to be bogged down on broader issues that I have no understanding of or care for. I respect the rational for FU, but it should not be debated on FAC. My preference would be to cut (if in doubt cut) any contencuois imgs, and discuss elsewhere. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article would benefit from a more compelling introduction. Not all of the facts and figures on the wreck are needed, and the space saved could be devoted to mention of the work’s genesis and influence. Kablammo (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have redrafted the lead. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—overall a good read, but needs work Switch to neutral (22:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

  • "At 491 × 717 cm" — couldn't that just be put into meters? Also, translation for us Americans?
    • I added - 16.1 x 23.5 feet...now we have cms, inches and feet listed, I'm not an expert on conversions to meters, someone might give that a shot...Modernist (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, - Outriggr added 4.9 x 7.2 meters Modernist (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Kablammo that the lead could use some tinkering. More on the impact of the work and its construction would be nice, and less on the actual background event; just hit the bullet points and save a few sentences.
    Agree also. Working on this. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the incompetent actions of the Méduses captain, Hugues Duroy de Chaumereys, a returned émigré." this introduction is redundant to the introduction of Chaumereys a paragraph earlier.
    This was fixed earlier, as far as I can tell...Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of bad sentence construction throughout, mostly via tacked-on and breathless clauses such as "By this time only 15 passengers were still alive; the others having died of hunger or starvation; having only wine and human flesh to survive on.", or "In 1818, he contacted the authors of published accounts, and later made sketches of bodies in the morgue of the Hospital Beaujon,[12] and even brought severed limbs back to his studio to study their decay."
    The article had an extensive copyedit yesterday, I think most of this was resolved. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until 1818, Géricault had not yet found his artistic voice. He was an admirer of Peter Paul Rubens and Antoine-Jean Gros, and while his first exhibited work, 1812's The Charging Chasseur, owes a debt to Rubens in its ambitious and monumental scale, it also indicates an interest in the depiction of contemporary subject matter. By the age of 25, Géricault had travelled and been witness to victims of both insanity and plague. From what he saw, he became haunted by the stiffness of corpses." - this doesn't adequately introduce us to Gericault the artist pre-Raft of the Medusa, and also is very vague about filling in details: how did he see all these dead or disease-ridden people? Admittedly, this was the 1800s, but I went to France and Germany and wasn't haunted by corpses, just zombies.
    • Done, I think it is better now...One source [4] has Gericault obsessed with this painting by Gros of the sick and the dead [5]Modernist (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Borias" - be nice to have him introduced in the article body rather than suddenly thrown in.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow later.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thaking the time David. All good points. We're working towards resolving. Ceoil (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are or were some tacked-on clauses... ("There are lots of bad sentence construction" is bad too :-). I did some work on this article at the same time as you were posting a review; it should be improved now. –Outriggr § 11:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has David Fuchs been pinged to revisit his oppose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading through the article now, Sandy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping my oppose. The prose is better, but there are still glaring issues (like incomplete sentences.) I've done some minor fixes, and also left inline comments in the first sections of the article where I think that there could be more elaboration, restructuring, or I was unsure what a passage meant. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article is undergoing an extensive c-e, and we will contact David when we feel it is complete. Ceoil (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice work all. Comments:
    • There is some redundancy between note 17, note 30 (which I admit, I just made), and the main text on David etc. I think this may be the result of multiple authorship, and in general I sensed some redundancy in a number of sections, which hopefully I've edited out.
      Seems to be fixed? Ceoil (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two references authored by Riding, and both have a 2003 publication date, but the Notes do not distinguish these. How about moving the journal article to the References section and making the corresponding Note "Riding (2003a)" or what have you. Assuming the references to Riding with a page number all belong to the book chapter, add "(2003b)" to them (to get "Riding (2003b), 77"), and to the main Reference.
      Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Now you've got a month for reach, but how would I (or you) know the book chapter is "June 2003"? –Outriggr § 07:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with comments about the lead. Most significant is the sentence "Scholars have generally attributed two inherent meanings to the work", which is not explained, and indeed I would have tried to explain it myself if I knew what two they were after reading. Are they the political overtones and the transition from neoclassicism to Romanticism and beyond? If so, I'm not sure "meanings" is the right word; I would just explain both ideas briefly in the lead.
      Cut as fanciful. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done, hopefully. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Continuing, I don't find the final sentence of the lead that consistent with the article: "In the words of ... Borias, Géricault's Medusa represents 'on the one hand, desolation and death. On the other, hope and life'". I get only the first sense from the article. Too picky?
      No, work is needed here. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another sentence I didn't quite get: "The ragged state of the figures' clothes allowed the "unromantic" nature of modern dress to be largely bypassed." Does this mean Gericault is able to escape the issue of contemporary clothing making his painting look "unromantic" because there is no need to dress the poor souls on the raft in contemporary clothing?
      I cut this as it contradicted later statements. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know the subtleties of British vs American English, being a hybrid. Is the "-ise" always required? If so, there are still a few "-ize"s in the text.
    • Done:I s'd the z's that I found, seems right now....Modernist (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are dates in the references "supposed to be" in the same format as that chosen in the main text?
      Yes I think I have them all consistent now.Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, –Outriggr § 11:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think. Lithoderm 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full pass made for dabs. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work, I enjoyed reading that. If possible 20,000 francs could use more indication of value. ϢereSpielChequers 23:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, trying to find a converter, but its not easy. Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link, what do you think? ϢereSpielChequers 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link looks useless, says basically nothing of relevance to the article or to how much 20,000 French francs were worth either in 1824 or today...I think we should lose it...Modernist (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what its worth 20,000 French francs today would be the equivalent of 3049.24 Euros or 4064.91 US Dollars...What 20,000 francs were worth back in 1824? - well - probably a good deal less than that painting is worth today....Modernist (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor problem: "At 491 × 7.17 cm (16.1 × 23.5 feet)..." - Can you check those metric measurements? The 7.17cm is clearly wrong if the imperial one is at all right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the period for now, but have no idea if the measurements are correct to begin with, Lithoderm 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that was my error. Though a 491 × 7.17 cm painting on a topic like this would be interesting enough! I've verfied that 491 × 716 cm (16.1 × 23.5 feet) as the article currently reads is correct. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment will jot a few notes and maybe do some copyediting. Feel free to revert any inadvertent changes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After 147 passengers were forced onto a raft, it was abandoned by the other crew. - I don't get this, where'd they go (bolded bit)?
  • Done, I rewrote that passage - I agree; I think it's better now...Modernist (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Raft of the Medusa, depicts a scene following the wreck of the French naval frigate, Méduse, when, after 13 days adrift on a raft, the remaining 15 survivors view a ship approaching from a distance. - yeah this is clunky, but I am not aware enough of the sources to reword.
  • Done, I think my changes are improvements...Modernist (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..sombre, dark, mostly brown pigments... - could remove this "dark" I think as sombre and brown sort of imply the same (and this would be the second 'dark' in the sentence)
  • Done, took out the dark, good call, thanks...Modernist (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The raft is shown as very unstable as... - here's a weird one, 'unstable' I always imagine as likely to tip over, whereas in this case I guess the meaning is more 'flimsy' , 'fragile' or something equivalent to 'lots-of-holes-and-likely-to-fall-apart-at-any-moment' ?
  • Done..I think it is a little better now..Modernist (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Géricault shaved his hair... - should this be 'Géricault shaved his head'?
I think linking some of teh more obscurely-known colours might be a good idea in Final work.
  • Done..Good idea, I linked all the colors that could be linked, with the obvious exceptions of black and white...Modernist (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Style issue; is there a reason why David and Gros are not bluelinked and named in full in their first mention in the Influences section?
which it seemed he had hoped to achieve. - 'which he seemed to seek'? (bit ungainly on read through)
No 'seemed' about it. It was a calculated move, and I've reworded as such. Ceoil (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Scène de Naufrage is translated as Shipwreck Scene, although Scene of Shipwreck would seem to be a literal and more elegant translation.
      I'll defer to....Modernist....on this. Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the quote from Delacroix about his running like a fool after seeing the painting, "faubourg" (suburb) is given without a capital although Faubourg Saint-Germain, the name of an area, would normally be capitalised. Is the capitalisation as per the original (translated) quote?
      no, but fixed. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the text list of his paint colours, Naples yellow is capitalised but not Prussian blue, which should also be.
      Yes, all done. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block quote from Montfort about G's working methods is introduced by a comma rather than a colon (as used later for the Wellington quote).
      I prefers comma's to introduce quotes; brought some consistency to this. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Interpretation and Legacy section, there is no mention of Julian Barnes' discussion of the incident and the creation of the painting in chapter 5 of his book A History of the World in 10½ Chapters. Barnes' uses the artistic process of the painting's creation to examine the way in which art interprets reality.
      Whoes interepration of what. The section is a wide overview, we are not pretending to be exhaustive compenduim of each view in each book. Or at least, I think! Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I wasn't suggesting incorporating any of Julian Barnes' commentary, which is somewhat satirical, just a mention that his book discusses the painting, i.e. it is influenced by it.--DavidCane (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it is the god's honest truth. Seeing if I can track it down on on of the online libaries and will come back on this. Ceoil (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably unwise per to give weight to passing mention per WP:UNDUE, considering all that has been written by so many about this work to date. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned this on talk before; I don't think it is essential to mention it, but Barnes is a useful antidote to loose talk about the "realism" of the painting, though I'm not saying we have any. I'll see if I can find my copy. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the read, other suggestions were helpful. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I've had a fiddle with the intro which I think went overboard with wreck-specific material that was needed in the fuller account under "Background" but not in the first paragraph.
  • The images that are being used for comparison are a vital part of the article, because both the development and the influence of this painting need covering and illustrations are the best way to do this. On this score I have two comments and a suggestion.
1. Using thumbnails for large and detailed paintings that you want people to compare is none other than ridiculous. I say that in full awareness of the fact that the "style-police" routinely reduce all pics to thumbs and uprights, even those at the lead of the article. This practice shows no comprehension of what art or art history is about or how "comparison" as an educative tool functions. Nearly all the pics need enlarging so that the reader does not have to continually hop backwards and forwards to wiki commons. And the argument about "giving readers a choice of how they view them" doesn't hold water as most viewers don't know they have a choice.
  • Although I sort of agree, I'm seeing both sides of the image size issue..given the range of preferences people have...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See reply below to Mattisse.Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Linked to this is the fact that you only have room for so many pictures, before they start disrupting the formatting and orphaning headings. So when you write a very long caption under a picture, then you have used up good picture space with a large number of words instead. Picture captions are best kept brief, to two lines if possible, not 8 ot 10 lines which extend the box down the side of the page, reducing space for the next pic. The discussion of the work illustrated doesn't need to be in the thumbnail box.
  • I'm seeing both sides to captions also. I think referenced images with text is one solution to the Fair use problem, although not in this article...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Expanding the size of the picture effectively shortens the number of lines taken up by the caption, because the caption spreads horizontally.
  • Solution. Enlarge all the pics that would benefit from so doing, and remove most of each caption into the text. The whole article will benefit.
Otherwise Support
Amandajm (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • I appreciate all the work that has gone into this article. I agree that the article would benefit from an abbreviation of the captions. The first caption (which almost makes no sense to me) is rendered (on my computer) adjacent to this eyeopening description: "Crazed, parched and starved, they slaughtered mutineers, ate their dead companions and killed the weakest." It is a weird contrast between the vivid description and the dry caption—the caption taking several readings—and I am not sure if it makes sense—it's a plan of the moment of rescue, it's a front piece—too much content for a caption that doesn't quite relate to the article content of the section. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed two, and broadly agree on principal. I wonder if we could loose the formats of the painting (ie oil on canvas, black crayon etc) for works by other artists. It would save space for text that would give concise context or reasoning why the img is being included. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to trim the redundant or extra text from the captions where possible and keep the oil on canvas, size, collections dates etc. those are important to include...Modernist (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rather disagree - all that info should of course be on the image page for those who want it. Dates should normally be included, and in this case perhaps sizes, but if it looks like "oil on canvas" it isn't necessary to add this to the caption, unless eg it is actually a gouache. In the case of chalk & mixed media studies etc, it is probably best to keep the medium, as it won't be as obvious looking at the image. In the same way if a painting is much larger or smaller than one might guess from a thumb, the size should be included - but for eg a portrait head at about life-size it isn't vital. Current collections are generally a matter of happenstance in this period, and don't themselves add much to the understanding of the image. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me you could lose formats of the paintings by other artists, in favor of info as to why img is being included, as info is on image page. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I've cut some of this, though I now realise some of the captions are now shown to be lacking in descriptive text. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with a couple thoughts)
  • "marked the origins" > would not "marked the beginning" be better as it was not the source of the Romantic moverment but rather the beginning point, no? There were larger forces, even though it may have "laid the foundations".
Agree; was maybe too fancifuly worded. Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too bad there is no room for Homer's The Gulf Stream as it makes a nice contrast colorwise, etc. from all the darkness, plus shows spread of influence to another hemisphere. (I had never pondered the connection between the two paintings.)
If the section can be developed enough to accomadate a fourth imgage, the Homer should be included. (Note this is not the long finger, but Modernist is the expert in connecting artists and works together, not me. Modernist...? Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the following was objected to by Maralia (below) as a lead in to a blockquote (and I agree) : Over 30 years after the completion of the work, his friend Montfort recalled that Géricault's "manner of working was quite new to me",[38] [blockquote].
  • I don't think the quote "manner of working was quite new to me" is significant enough to be worth confusing the blockquote mark up. Plus, it means you have to have a footnote there as well as in the blockquote. Also, I know you stated that you prefer commas to colons, but the commas to make the blockquotes more confusing, I think.
Yeah, agree, cut that bit. I've changed the general structures of the quotes so that they are now just part of the paras; the article has more images that usual and the quotes and images seem to have been conflicting and causing problems at lower resolutions (I tried it on a few, and saw problems up to 1024 res) Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all good suggestions; it will take time to work through them. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Maralia I gave this a copyedit. I left some hidden comments, and have a few more questions:
  • Quote issues:
  • In many cases where you have ended a quotation with outside punctuation, it feels like said punctuation belongs inside, but has been moved outside, perhaps in an attempt to satisfy logical punctuation rules. Is there some confusion over this? It feels forced and reads awkwardly in many cases.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Delacroix quote is very short; why is it in a blockquote?
Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Montford quotes are strangely presented; why include a quoted phrase inline, followed immediately by a lengthy blockquote?
Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presentation of lengthy quotations is a bit wonky because {{blockquote}} does not indent a quotation when the text is floated around an image. I notice that the long Montford quote does not use the blockquote template, and thus indents properly. Perhaps this is a good solution in general? (And my apologies if my minor shifting of images has contributed to this.)
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect it is because I am no art historian, but I have a hard time with statements such as a painting 'anticipates' or 'fore-echoes' one which came years later by someone else. While that may be standard phrasing in the art history field, to me it rather defies logic. Could these statements at least be directly quoted?
  • What is meant by this: "282 1/4⅝ in"?
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why give both 10- and 13-digit ISBNs?
Quite. Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a really interesting read—it's always a pleasant surprise to come across an article that ties in to one of my pet interests. Maralia (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the copyedit...! Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One further issue: I think the Montford quote would be better incorporated thus:
his friend Montfort recalled:
"[Gericault's method] astonished me as much as his..."
I've struck addressed concerns above; one remains, in addition to my Montford suggestion. Maralia (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What else? Modernist (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have these sorted. The Montford quote is ok now? Ceoil (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed except one of my original comments above, about stating that a work 'anticipates' another later work. Maralia (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ceoil just got that one covered...Modernist (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, bad phrase, I think we have it. Ceoil (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, you got one instance, but there are two more (both about Prud'hon, one in a caption). Maralia (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Modernist (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything addressed; changed to support. Well done, folks. Maralia (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the look. Ceoil (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2009 (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/The_Raft_of_the_Medusa&oldid=1210507716"