Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portrait of Monsieur Bertin/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 13:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Portrait of Monsieur Bertin[edit]

Nominator(s): Modernist, Ceoil, Kafka Liz, Ewulp

Bertin presents as somewhat firesome, but was a charming conversationalist, an arts patron with deep pockets, and had a cheerful -perhalps motherly- disposition. Ingres portrait is rightfully seen as one of the most innovative and importaint 19th c paintings by any artist. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image should use {{Infobox artwork}}, and the size of the lead image is very big. It has 410 px, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size suggest no more than 300 (and the image does not seem to be included among the possible exceptions). The article includes as well several cases where the text gets "sandwiched" between images. Cambalachero (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, reduced image - done...Modernist (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at text squash. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion re word scrunch, but to say infoboxes are not mandatory, and not always useful. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Ingres_Study_for_Monsieur_Bertin_Louvre.JPEG needs a US PD tag and should use creation rather than upload date
    • Fixed I think; please advise if it's still wrong. Ewulp (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Journal_des_débats.gif needs a US PD tag and a more specific source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not finding anything on Journal_des_débats.gif, might have to loose it. Ceoil (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Only looking at references and reference formatting at this time:

  • The use of abbreviated page ranges is not consistent; I believe note 4 is the odd one out.
  • Is there a reason that one journal source (Lubar, from The Art Bulletin) is given solely in the footnotes but another (Burroughs, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin) has an entry in the Bibliography?
  • Lubar uses "nr."; Burroughs uses "no.".
  • Journal citations (Lubar, Burroughs) and chapter citations (Rosenblum 1999, Shelton 1999) should have page numbers, where available.
  • On the other hand, you probably don't need the page number in the bibliography entry for the Newman et al. reference, as it's provided in the footnote (and, as best as I can tell, there's not a specifically-title subsection of the work located at that page reference).
  • Is there a reason that the Boime source is not given in title-case?
  • Ideally, ISBNs should all be properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. Luckily, conversion is very easy.
  • You use two-letter state abbreviations in general, but "Conn." for the Mongan source.
  • Is an OCLC number available for the Pach reference?
  • The Pomarède entry has a presumably spurious space before the colon in its title.
  • I suspect that the Toussaint entry is not properly formatted. This is a book-format work, yes? If so, it should be italicized. Also, you've given publication locations for all the other books in the Bibliography, so this one needs it, also. Additionally, this appears to be in French; foreign-language sources should have their language indicated.
  • The publisher location and language issues also apply to some of the Further Reading entries.
  • Naef needs an identifier of some sort (ISBN or OCLC). I believe this is ISBN 978-3-7165-0250-1, but cannot be certain on my own.
  • I suspect that the volume number should directly follow the title here.

The decision to eschew citation templates is, of course, a matter of editor's discretion (although I think they would have been helpful for avoiding some of these problems). Neutral regarding promotion, as I have not evaluated the prose; in any case, nothing in my referencing quibbles should be taken as fatal to this candidacy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, these are very helpful. I think I have most, all covered at this stage. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from VE[edit]

This is looking good; I've watched it grow since its beginning. I've made a few edits, gave the Baronne her own para (I miss that pic!), and another para break for the section about Bertin's hands, but don't worry about reverting if anyone disagrees. Third para in "Preparation and execution" lost its cite, so I noted that inline. I'm seeing a small bit of text squash too and in preview mode played around with moving the preparatory sketches to a gallery at the bottom of the "Preparation and execution". It didn't look too bad, so am putting that out as an idea. There'd probably be room to add another sketch too. It's interesting the see the process Ingres went through to get the right pose.
Support because these are minor issues. Nice job everyone and an interesting read - I haven't read it in about two or three years until tonight. Victoria (tk) 01:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Am toying with reducing text squash / reintruducing Rothschild. Not easy! Looking at the cite gap, but seems a matter of re-introducing.
regigged, with a gallery for the sketches and Rothschild returned. Thanks for the edits and comments, as always appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

  • Support. Absolutely gorgeous prose. Without a fair degree of historical knowledge, the first paragraph of the background section will not mean a lot to the reader unless they click through most of the links; what I admire about the writing is that it beautifully conveys the interesting nature of Bertin even to a reader, like myself, who doesn't understand the historical events and movements that are mentioned.
  • "They are similar in size; the Rogers version measures..." What is meant by "the Rogers version"? I'm assuming this is an art historian's shorthand for denoting one of the seven sketches, but most readers won't know that, nor would they have any idea why one sketch is singled out for naming. Nor do we know who Rogers is (though we can infer it from the caption to one of the images later on), and there isn't a link. Perhaps just "They are similar in size, around 35 cms square" or "One of the sketches measures 34.9 × 34.3 cm; the others are of a similar size". Also, should there be a conversion template to allow readers to see the dimensions in inches?
  • Great to see provenance has been covered.
  • The influence on the Vaughan Williams portrait is striking and an excellent comparison to have drawn attention to.

Thank you all for the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hamiltonstone. I've dropped mention of Rogers in the text, and applied the conversion tempate. Agree re the inclusion of the Vaughan Williams series; one of Ewulp's additions; nice indeed. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. All my issues have been taken care of; this is featured quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was surprised to see a commons link inline in the text; wouldn't it be normal practice to link to the en-wiki article on The Vow of Louis XIII and let that link to commons? I think this is discouraged in the MoS, and will try to find it if you're unaware of any such stricture.
  • Article was created only recently, fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ingres made drawings of the Bertin family, including a notable depiction of his host's wife, and sketches of their son Armand and daughter-in-law, Cécile. The portrait of Armand shows his physical resemblance to his father." In the given context, which is the 1832 portrait, this sounds as though these other sketches were done at this time as well. Per the captions that's not the case, so I think a "later" or something similar should be added to clarify.
  • The sentence beginning "The sitter for his 1848 Portrait of Baronne de Rothschild" seems to be a non-sequitur; the paragraph is describing Ingres' career "to that point", but this portrait is sixteen years later.
  • Its not as if the emphases of his work suddenly changed after the Bertin portrait, so i've reworded this. Ceoil (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'In a version that Eugène Emmanuel Amaury Duval said was related to him by Bertin, Ingres noticed a pose Bertin took while seated outside with Ingres and a third man at a café. Bertin said that Ingres "came close and speaking almost in my ear said: 'Come sit tomorrow, your portrait is done.'" ' Are these events on the same day, as it appears? Surely not, if the pose in the portrait was inspired by the pose Ingres saw that day?
As related by Amaury Duval it was the same day. Ingres' comment to Bertin should be interpreted as "I've got it at last; come sit tomorrow, your portrait is as well as done". Ewulp (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. How about adding "[as good as]" in square brackets to the quote? Or adding a note to explain this to the reader? It's easy to misinterpret. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads as "Bertin said that Ingres, confident that he had finally established the pose for portrait, "came close and speaking almost in my ear said: 'Come sit tomorrow, your portrait is [as good as] done.'"" Ceoil (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also features a window reflection the pommel of the pope's chair": missing a word?
  • The commentary on the frame would benefit from an image of part of the frame, if one is available.
  • There images on commons, but as they are 3d are not allowed, sadly. Ceoil (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the Achermann portrait really add value to the article? It's in the manner of Denner, but Ingres was compared to Denner, not to Denner's imitators. I'm not saying it has to be removed, but with Achermann not mentioned at all in the text it's a little surprising to see it there.
  • I've taken it out; thinking of a replacement. Ceoil (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review; all adressed now, I think Ceoil (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just one comment left. Re the Achermann, I think you could put it back if the commentary you have on Denner can be interpreted to make it relevant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike, but I'm happy enough to leave it out now. There is no direct reference to that painting, which is only "after" Denner. Ceoil (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Then the only thing left is the note about the pose comment; I'll support once that's done. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now supporting above. Great work, y'all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He. Thanks for taking the time to review. Ceoil (talk) 11:35, 18 April 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/Portrait_of_Monsieur_Bertin/archive1&oldid=791874696"