Wikipedia:Peer review/Las Meninas/archive1

Las Meninas edit

Painting by Diego Velázquez. Hoping to take to FAC before ye end. Thanks, Ceoil (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit edit

Currently housed in the Museo del Prado in Madrid, the work is one of the most important and famous paintings in Western art history, and a classic of seventeenth-century art. - This sentence needs to include a clause explaining why the painting is important.

Have moved quotes to the 1st para to back up claims, but the lead could still be strenghtened. I usually leave the lead till last. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I often write the lead last as well - it is hard to know what to summarize until there is something to summarize. :) Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The royal couple presumably occupy the space where the viewer of the painting would stand, though some have speculated that their image is a reflection from the painting Velázquez is shown to be working on. - Some scholars perhaps?

Done. Scholars named in the body. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to John Searle, "the painter is painting the picture we are seeing: that is, he is painting Las Meninas by Velázquez". - Identify all people the first time they are introduced - why should the reader trust Searle, for example? Later in the article, "writer" is used as an identifying tag, but it is not clear what that means exactly.

Philip IV's first wife, Elisabeth of Bourbon, died in 1644, while his only heir, his son Baltasar Carlos, died two years later. - the "his's" become awkward and confusing here

Reworded. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer. Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velázquez was, by the mid-1650s, at the height of his powers, however Mariana and her children Margarita, and Felipe Prospero were to be Velázquez's last royal subjects. - sounds as if Velazquez was the sovereign - "subjects" has a double meaning here that is unfortunate

Eek, has been clarified. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it has. Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout his life and career, Velázquez struggled against this, working his way up the ranks of the royal household to his ultimate aim of becoming a knight of the Order of Santiago.[3] In light of this, critics such as Svetlana Alpers have argued that in his portrayal of the artist at work in the company of royalty and nobility, Velázquez is making an argument of the high status of both the artist and his art. - "this's" become vague and sentence is not as clear as it could be

Reworded and expanded. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Background" contains some interpretation - particularly last paragraph - that might make more sense in other sections of the article.

Much more coherent section now. Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The former living quarters of Baltasar Carlos,[6] the high-ceilinged room is presented, in the words of Silvio Gaggi, as "a simple box that could be divided into a perspective grid with a single vanishing point" - Has to be explained - picture of this, maybe?

Do you mean a detail of the roof, or a graph showing the grid lines? Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A graph showing the grid lines. `Awadewit | talk

discussed on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though the royal couple are ostensibly the models for the entire composition, and thus the painting's anecdotal subjects, they do not appear directly on the canvas. - Why is "anecdotal" necessary?

Reworded. I took this from a rather flowery source. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that purple prose. :) This is better. Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The twentieth-century French philosopher and cultural critic Michel Foucault observes that the light from the window illuminates both the studio foreground and the unrepresented area in front of it, in which the king, queen, and viewer are presumed to be situated. - Foucault must have said more than just this - it is Foucault, after all.

Have expanded this section, and the Interpretation. Problem with Foucault is, as you mention, he has a lot to say. I have two dense quotes from him at the moment, but condensing them is difficult.

I guess I just don't understand what is so significant about this observation. Why, for example, would we even need to attribute it to Foucault? Does he attach any particular meaning to it? Perhaps I'm just missing something. Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infra-red has shown that Velázquez made minor alterations to the figures as he worked; at first his own head inclined to his right, rather than his left. - Lone sentence

Banished to the notes. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution. Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I was reading the article, I felt that the painting was being described far more than explained or interpreted.

Working on this. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes over 3-4 lines long should be blockquotes.

Done, looks better. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS point (since you're eventually taking this to FAC): Blockquotes don't use quotations marks (WP:MOSQUOTE). Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This idea of illusion was popular in Spain during the seventeenth-century, and was based on the earlier thought that temporal truth is not skin deep, and that human existence is just a semblance of a greater reality. - vague

I might cut this. Tbh, I'm not even sure I know what it means ;). Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In recent years, attempts have been made to view the composition in allegorical terms, based upon the portrait and mythological pictures hung on the background wall. Yet it seems most valid to accept at face value, in Michel Foucault's words, "the working painter in all his objective realism". - POV - why valid?

Had to rewrite this section. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about putting the Velazquez as curator material earlier, under "Background"? The article moved from the general to the specifics about the painting and then back to the general history again. It was a bit jarring.

Yeah, it didn't make much sense on its own. I integrated with background as suggested. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much more helpful there, I think. Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I started to wonder whether the painting was about realism or artificiality. It seemed like both interpretations could be offered, but I didn't think they both were in the article.

I am also curious about the prominence of Foucault. He is best known as a philosopher and literary theorist. The Archaeology of Knowledge is not a text about art history. Do other art historians refer to Foucault's interpretation a lot?

Most discussions published during the 1970s and 1980s are framed by Foucault's essay. See here, if you have a few hours free ;). Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I just wondered. It struck me as odd. I guess no humanistic fields were free of the influence of Foucault. :) Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be most helpful for the reader to have the red cross image next to the text describing the incident.

The bibliography is oddly formatted - it is not in any recognized style, such as Chicago or MLA.

I reformatted this. It was a bit all over the place, yes. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a couple of anomalous formattings, but those are easy to fix. (I only mention these because of FAC.) Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments were helpful! Awadewit | talk 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Awadewit, for another careful and thoughtful review. I work through these, and you have highlighted areas for expansion. Will post back here when I'm done. This will help enormously. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I like getting back to art every once in a while. Awadewit | talk 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks for these. I think most have been dealt with, or the section rewritten anyway. There are comments on more recent versions at the talk page also. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]