Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waddesdon Bequest/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2015 [1].

Waddesdon Bequest

edit
Nominator(s): Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a spectacular collection of Renaissance treasures bequeathed to the British Museum by a Rothschild. It is the only part of the museum's collection that is always displayed together. Within the museum it is moving to a new, more prominent, position, and the display opens next month (June 2015). I don't think we have any FAs, and not many articles at all about collections, and though the range of types of objects and periods here is considerable, the unifying taste is distinctive, and very much of its time (the late 19th century). Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new display is now open by the way. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Happy to support this article now that the comments have been dealt with. It has improved a great deal over the course of the nomination. Well done. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments dealt with

Very interesting subject matter. I have a few comments:

  • RE: the block quote regarding Ferdinand's bequest, could this be excerpted in the lede and reproduced in full (with accompanying material) in the body of the article? Related to this point, I feel like the article would benefit from a section devoted to the background of the collection as a whole, i.e. the circumstances of Rothschild acquiring these pieces, his donation of them to the Museum, and whether others were donating similarly etc..
Yes, I should be able to do this later in the week. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Started this, but I think not finished it. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now done, with a "history" section at the beginning and a short one on the BM display history at the end. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: schatzkammer and treasure house, are these distinct terms or simply the German and its equivalent phrase in English (in which case should it be "schatzkammer or 'treasure house'"?)
A bit distinct - schatzkammer literally translates to "treasure room/chamber", but the rather vague "treasure house" is more usual in English, so I think it is best left as is. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note I have made a few minor changes myself.
  • Is there any way that "Objects from before the Renaissance" can be shortened? (I take your point about "Pre-Renaissance" not working, didn't gauge the dating of the objects at a glance.) Perhaps Medieval and Classical objects?
I can't think of a better alternative, but open to suggestions. "Medieval and Classical objects" is only 5 characters shorter. One could say "Earlier objects" but unless the lead has been read and absorbed, that begs the question "earlier than what?". Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under 'Jewellery': "There is no such difficulty [in placing the country of manufacture] with the most famous jewel in the collection". This sentence is quite verbose, and despite it I still don't know what the country of manufacture is from the next few sentences.
Oh! Ok, "made in London" added. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It redirects here, as being pretty well known. References in books etc tend to just say "British Museum", which will be the picture credit. I hope it will get its own article before long in fact. There are a few other objects with "names" that might be worth redirecting, but I haven't done them. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now "Lyte was not a regular at court, but he had drawn up a family tree tracing James' descent back to the legendary Trojan, Brut." Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Tim riley

edit
Collapse my two penn'orth now thoroughly dealt with

This is a gorgeous article, and I'll certainly be supporting it. A few qubbles first though:

  • The lead, to my mind, falls foul of WP:LEAD, as it contains important information not found in the body of the text. To comply with the MoS, I'd recommend moving the quote from the Baron's bequest to the main text and replacing it in the lead with a short paraphrase. Similarly, the detailed information about the display rooms belongs in the main text, with a shorter summary in the lead. And so on, with – for preference – all the citations in the lead moved to the main text.
Yes, coming - see 1st point above. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Started this, but I think not finished it. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now done, with a "history" section at the beginning and a short one on the BM display history at the end. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate links in the main text:
    • silver-gilt (twice), Limoges enamel, rock crystal, and Horace Walpole
Done Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaissance metalwork
    • "rather too heavily for conventional modern taste" – I don't doubt it, but we want an inline source for this opinion.
For now I've added Tait, who mutters about decoration that is "less well-disciplined" and lacking "purity". I doubt John Berger deigned to notice such objects, or he would provide much more forthright language, but I will hunt around elsewhere. In a fortnight or so the press may provide some up-to-the-minute thoughts. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "damascened" – is blue-linked at second, rather than first mention here.
Done Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Final para of section: does ref 14 cover all the statements in this para?
I think so; there are 4 sources in it. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now split up to 2 refs, which I hope is better. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image captions: "tazze" blue-linked to a dab page.
done Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jewellery
    • "James I of England, a great lover" – at first reading this doesn't convey what you mean it to convey. By the end of the sentence all is clear, but it distracts the reader momentarily.
Now "King James I of England, who loved large jewels, and giving them to others." Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was mildly surprised to see James' rather than James's as the possessive. I think the former is usual in AmEng and the latter in BrEng. Not a matter of great import, but I mention it.
Done Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fakes and revised attributions
    • The Walpole quote omits the italics (presumably his underlinings in the original) and the hyphen he put in " out-issimo", as printed here.
Excellent spot! Walpole is as bad as Queen Victoria! These weren't included in the BM's website transcription of Tait's transcription of the Yale edition, but no doubt should have been - I'll check next time I have hard copies in my hand. Added. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
    • British Museum publications: the publisher is variously listed here as "British Museum Press", "British Museum Publications", and "British Museum". Is this right?
Although of course the same people, they have adopted a number of styles in the 20th century. These are per the details given for each work, except that the 1902 Read, which I've called "British Museum" actually has a long spiel beginning "Printed by Order of the Trustees...." [2] as they used to do. I would think these are best left, but open to thoughts. I've added "Press" to the new book (Thornton, Dora (2015), A Rothschild Renaissance: The Waddesdon Bequest, 2015, British Museum Press). "Press" and "Publications", covering the last few decades, are no doubt technically a distinct subsidiary company, that I think changed its name, though they live next door. "Publications" was used between the 1970s and 1990 or so. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I see the 3 volumes of "big Tait" spanned the change of name, 2 from "Publications" & the last from "Press". I'm inclined to as some catalogues do, & leave it at just "British Museum". Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are those (not me) who like to insist on the WP:ISBN letter of the law for ISBNs: 13-digits, hyphenated. If you are minded to oblige, the excellent ISBN converter gives:
      • Cherry: 978-0-7141-2820-7
      • Tait: 978-0-7141-1357-9
      • Thornton: 978-0-7141-2345-5
      • Vincent: 978-1-58839-450-7
Done those, thanks Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unkind of you to put this enticing article forward at a time when the collection is not on display. I can hardly wait! We can rely on you to update the article once the move has taken place, I know. Once it has, the little box linking to Commons "Room 45, British Museum" will want updating, as presumably will the Commons page itself, but I'm sure you have this in mind already. Tim riley talk 10:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Tim! Only about 3 weeks to wait - I'm not sure of the actual date of the re-opening. There will also be an event for Wikipedians before long, which I hope will generate some more articles on individual pieces or groups, or some artists. Also new and better photos. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opens to the public on 11 June, I see now. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. By then, I hope, this alluring article will have its wholly justified FA gold star. Very pleased to add my support. Tim riley talk 15:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sorry, I don't understand this. All my photos (most in the article, like that one) use the age-based rationale, don't they? Equally I think the object is at least as 3D as a coin, which we assume doesn't pass as 2D in this context. I can see only one photo, apart from the painting, that might pass as 2D (File:Waddesdon bequest British Museum DSCF9814 03.JPG). Many that I expect you are thinking of have curved surfaces that actually present considerable difficulties to a skilled photographer (not me). Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of these likely could use an age-based rationale, but most of the images currently in the article use CC BY-SA, representing your or others' copyright as photographer only. However, I've looked into some of the UK freedom of panorama rules, and it appears they apply more broadly than elsewhere, so I'll withdraw that suggestion. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Certainly all the objects in the bequest are out of artist's copyright. Whether any count as 2D is questionable. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora. Excellent. Singora (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good article and, IMO, exactly what Wikipedia needs more of. There are however a few issues.

  • 1. Are inline citations allowed in the first two or three paragraphs? I think not. I think the deal is that content in the summary should be developed (and linked to) in the article's main body.
Yes, you have the choice - WP:LEADCITE. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. In the "Fakes and revised attributions" section you appear to have a one sentence paragraph.
"As he describes"? This is finishing the para after a blockquote. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. In the "Fakes and revised attributions" section, paragraph 4, you've written "his genuine works as a goldsmith are more rare than paintings by Giorgione". Grammar. The word is "rarer".
Changed Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. Ref number 2 is a dead link.
Indeed. It seems Columbia U have just shut that archive down, quite recently. The poiece was never published elsewhere, and is cited by several books. Removed - Tait covers it all fine. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. Your refs are formatted inconsistently. For example, "Thornton (2015)" and "Read". Either include the publication date for all, or remove it from all.
Consistently, only Thornton, with 2 works used, is given dates. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6. Your British Museum refs are also inconsistent. At times you write (for example) "BM collection database, WB.33"; elsewhere you give only the BM ref (for example) "WB.77".
Fixed all these links Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7. I don't think you need to include the word "database" when giving BM refs.
I do, because the BM, very confusingly, has 2 different online databases of objects, "collection database" and "highlights" (the latter with several '000 objects, the former some 2 million). You need to distinguish between them. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8. Your bibliography contains errors.

Apologies -- I need to go out. I'll come back and finish this later.

Thanks for these, done the above, except the last, & will wait for the rest. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More from Singora Singora (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 9. OFF-TOPIC BANTER. Way back in 2008 you added a comment to the talk page of Persian embassy to Louis XIV. You asked if any Iranian sources were available. I wonder why you asked.
Well, for one thing, the actual status of the emissary seems rather dubious. Many thought, and perhaps still think, he was an ordinary merchant got up by French courtiers to cheer the king up. Johnbod (talk)
  • 10. Your bibliography. I need to format this in a way that's not messy. Let's see what happens. In your bibliography you have:
  • 11. I don't like this. I prefer:
    • Read, Sir Charles Hercules (1902), The Waddesdon Bequest: Catalogue of the Works of Art bequeathed to the British Museum by Baron Ferdinand Rothschild, M.P., 1898, London: British Museum
  • 12. Do you see what I've done? Did you notice that my source is not the same as yours. Click the links and see. My source has photos; yours doesn't. My point here is that ARCHIVE.ORG sometimes has more than one version of the same source. If you're interested, you can upload your own sources. I've done this, btw. It's a great way of sharing. The next error may be tricky to correct. You have:
    • Vincent, Clare, in The Robert Lehman Collection: Decorative arts. XV (Volume 15 of The Robert Lehman Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art; several authors), 2012, Metropolitan Museum of Art, ISBN 978-1-58839-450-7, google books
Ok, I will switch to the version with pictures - I'm puzzled I ended up with the other, as I certainly had the one with pictures up when doing the original writing. Thanks for spotting that. Otherwise I prefer the original style, including how to use these numbers to relate to the BM catalogue. So long as readers can get the necessary information from a source listing without difficulty, any style (used consistently) is acceptable per the FA criteria, and imo the main reason to choose between the plethora of options available should be for the convenience of the writers not the readers, to whom they are virtually identical. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see much benefit for the reader in this - when using google books links I think it is best to make it clear what they are, as they may only work from some geographical locations, and may come and go at the whim of the publisher, so they may not be available to all equally. Eventually the Metropolitan should fully release this book, & then that link should be used in preference. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have tried to offer suggestions here to improve the presentation of the bibliography, but find some of these templates a bit too fiddly. I don't have time to try again. Regardless, this is a great article and exactly the sort of work Wikipedia should be proud of. Singora (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add that I have now had comments from the 2 British Museum curators closest to the Bequest, which I have acted on. This diff pretty much covers them. Also some from the BMP editor on the new book. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Singora Singora (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those British Museum edits improve things a lot. The only one I might have picked up was the "collectors" versus "collections" issue.
Do you really have British Museum connections? If so, you may be familiar with Mr Meredith-Owens' Handlist of Persian Manuscripts: 1895-1966, published by the British Museum in 1966. One manuscript listed is Safineh-i Sulaimani, ref: OR 6942; it's an account of an embassy sent to Siam in 1685. To the best of my knowledge this is the only account of an embassy undertaken during the Safavid period. It was translated into English and published in 1972 as The Ship of Sulaiman. I'm currently writing a Wiki article about this embassy; I started a year ago and am now about 90% done. I'll put it on Wikipedia very soon.
The links below are from Encyclopædia Iranica. The first details the Persian embassy to Louis XIV; the second gives an overview of the The Ship of Sulaiman.
[FRANCE ii. RELATIONS WITH PERSIA TO 1789 http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/france-ii]
[SAFINE-YE SOLAYMANI http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/safine-ye-solaymani]
Yes, they have worked with WP at times since 2010, which is really great - see Wikipedia:GLAM/British Museum. But these manuscripts will have gone (I'm pretty sure) to the British Library when they were split off in the 1970s. They still use the OR numbers, along with fuller ones. Thanks for the links; the embassy page was using (I presume) an outdated link to the EI page, so I've updated it. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- there's been some discussion of references above but is anyone prepared to sign off on formatting and reliability of the sources (i.e. our standard source review)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having familarity with the subject matter, all sources are from reliable and authorative authors and publishers; no concernes re claims or close pharaphrasing from a spot check of 4 refs from the BM database. Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2015 (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/Waddesdon_Bequest/archive1&oldid=1138475113"