Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Cloisters/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) 09:22, 19 September 2018 [1].

The Cloisters[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Museum in New York City specialising in European medieval architecture, sculpture and decorative arts, especially on the Romanesque and Gothic periods. The Cloisters building and early collection was funded by John D. Rockefeller, and is today governed by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. There was a very useful and rewarding peer review a few months ago, which can be found here. Note the Metropolitan's engagement with Wikipedia has been exemplary, and they were kind enough to release all their image content last year. Lingzhi was very helpful in sorting out all the refs, no small job. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I participated in the peer review. My comments were addressed, but on re-reading, I'd add the following:

  • "and relocated in New York." I would say "to" for "in".
  • "he had amassed enough quality artifacts to open a gallery in Manhattan, New York.[8]" Generally, Manhattan does not take a New York, unless you were saying "Manhattan, New York City" which would be unusual. I think the name "Manhattan" is enough by itself.
  • " Its most well known" probably "Its best known" is better.
  • "about one million US dollars" since this is a US article, the "US" is probably unneeded.
  • "The collections' pot-metal works (that is containing colorants from the High Gothic period highlight the effects of light,[34] especially the transitions between darkness, shadow and illumination.[35] " You open a parens and do not close it.
    "Each of these book are of exceptional quality," should book be books?
  • "the consensus was that the Cloisters should focus on architectural elements and sculpture and decorative arts to enhance the environmental quality of the institution, " and ... and
  • "with the intention that it was donated to the Metropolitan.[45]" Whose intent?
  • "Thus it had been rarely studied or widely appreciated, and was until that point also attributed to Jean Pucelle. " I might say "misattributed" for "attributed also". In any event, I'd at least get rid of the "also"
  • "until rediscovered by Barnard who organized for the entrances' transfer to New York. " I would say "arranged" for "organized".
  • "and are baldly damaged; most have been decapitated." should "baldly" be "badly"? (although decapitaton is the ultimate baldness, I suppose.
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these, and for edits also. All corrected now. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help and final support.Ceoil (talk)

Image review[edit]

  • File:John_D._Rockefeller_Jr..jpg: when/where was this first published?
Swapped out, with a PD. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Hunt_of_the_Unicorn_Tapestry_4.jpg: source link is dead
Replaced file. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the US doesn't have freedom of panorama for sculptural works, these will need explicit tags for the original works
  • File:4_Jean_Pucelle._Hours_of_Jeanne_d'Evreux._1325-28,_Metropolitan_Museum,_New-York.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Psalter_of_Bonne_de_Luxembourg.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've also got some harverrors in your references that will need fixing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated the references. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of style and prose[edit]

As an acquaintance I will "recuse" (which I suppose means this technically carries no weight without a stick!), but can you look at these:

  • The infobox says the collection size is "1854" (very specific!) while the text says "approximately five thousand individual pieces". I'm going to guess the box is wrong, but is there a reference you can add here.
  • Removed claim from infobox. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed the journal citations don't include page numbers. I'm not sure if this is an "allowable" citation variation or an oversight.
  • Working through; these had all been there at one stage; didn't realise they were mandatory. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalization: "Cuxa Cloisters" vs "Saint-Guilhem cloisters", etc. Do the texts capitalize the latter word here. In any event those four sections should be consistent in this regard.
    • Repeat the above with respect to the chapels: "Gothic Chapel [heading]: The Gothic chapel...".
  • I'm afraid I have to ask the same of pluralization of "Cloister(s)". Should individual cloisters be termed "cloister" in headings and elsewhere? I wonder how the sources refer to them. I bring this up because the text has "Cuxa Cloisters" and "Cuxa Cloister" currently, for example.
  • While I don't know what MOS:ELLIPSIS says until I look, you have spaced and unspaced: " ... " and "...".
  • You have "compromising of", where you mean "comprising of", where you mean "comprised of", where you could probably do away with the word altogether: "through a doorway compromising of a of large, elaborate French Gothic stone entrance" perhaps? Doorway and entrance redundant.
  • Have more or less gone with your wording, which is much better. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a sentence: "The current chairman of the board, when the businessman and art collector Daniel Brodsky was elected in 2011,[133] having previously served on its Real Estate Council (1984), as a trustee of the museum and Vice Chairman of the Buildings Committee."
  • This has been turned into a sentence now. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has "art work", "artwork" and "art-work" or plurals of same. I believe "wikt:artwork" is best.
  • Yes, now all "artwork". Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two "reflect"s in one sentence: "With secular pieces, it typically favors those that reflect the range of artistic production in the medieval period, and according to art historian Timothy Husband, "reflect ..."
  • The names of two plays at the end should be in italics.
  • Three captions in "Illuminated manuscripts" have italicized names for particular images within the manuscripts, while putting the manuscript name in quotes. I would argue for the opposite treatment, as the manuscript articles use italics for their titles; e.g. "The Arrest of Christ" and "The Annunciation to Mary" [two pages, two images]. Jean Pucelle, Hours of Jeanne d'Evreux
No, I think Ceoil is right here. MS names like "Hours of Jeanne d'Evreux" are the names of objects, not the titles of works. With the miniatures it is the opposite. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'm used to seeing them italicized here. Outriggr (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the paragraph about film locations would go well with the very short final section, where the building is noted as an interesting location for plays.
  • Not clear about acquisition date mentioned in this sentence, if she began in 1969: "Jane Hayward, a curator at the museum from 1969 ...... She bought c. 1500 heraldic windows from the Rhineland, now in the Campin room with the Mérode Altarpiece, acquired in 1950."

— Outriggr (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outriggr, as we are long term collaborators, yes fine, of course, on you not voting either way. Working through your helpful suggestions, and txs. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

I remember that the peer review was a pleasure, with many suggestions taken. Looking again, only minor concerns:

Lead

  • I could imagine a few lines about today, instead of ending in 1938.

Infobox

  • Do we have a parameter to mention Metropolitain Museum of Art?

Headers

  • Today, I see an empty section as #1, two sections called collection on different levels, - that could be improved.
  • I wonder why it's Langon Chapel but Romanesque hall, instead of Romanesque Hall, etc.

Images

  • I understand the wish to illustrate the extraordinary treasures, but feel that in some sections, less might be more. How about a few galleries, instead of text squeezed between images right and left? I prefer to start with an image "right" in a new section, and no overlap of sections, but that may just be me.
  • Improvement. Its been hard though, as have spent the last few years writing the daughter articles. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Deuchler is defined twice, both 1971, - probably one should be 1974, probably the second, but I am not sure enough to just change it.
  • Both are 1971, but sorted.
  • Three refs look unused, and if intentionally, should go to further reading.
  • Please be less obtuse, so can address. Have audited but cant find them - which ones? Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to read the article again, but not tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working through these. Am inclined to agree with re images, but don't have a solution just yet. A few were cut today. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being snippy earlier. I'm redrafting and expanding the "objects" section to make the images less intrusive - plus have found a bunch of sources: happy days :) Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have significantly changed the TOC so that the article will be more summary style, mentioning individual major pieces but in the context of their acquisition and weight within the collection overall. However to get to this shift, the page looks now disjointed, will report back by tomorrow night. Ceoil (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, thank you for the changes, Ceoil. Sorry for not saying that sooner. I was busy and will be away (reheasing Brahms) until Monday. Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gerda, these suggestions were most useful. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius[edit]

I remember seeing this at peer review. There are a few comments that I have, which I'll post here later, but I generally do think it is up to quality. epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, going from the beginning to end of the article:

  • It holds approximately five thousand works of art and architecture, all European and mostly dating from the 12th to 15th centuries—that is, from the Byzantine to the early Renaissance periods. - I would personally avoid using the m-dash in this way because it awkwardly interrupts a thought. I would consider rewording this sentence so that the m-dash isn't needed. Something similar to this: "It holds approximately five thousand works of art and architecture, all European and mostly dating from the Byzantine to the early Renaissance periods, namely during the 12th through 15th centuries." Just a suggestion though.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening in 1938 is mentioned only in the lead, but not in the body. I think this is a pretty major omission for the "History" section. Not that much needs to be done; adding even a sentence or two about the opening in the body would be sufficient.
    Will do Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and who in the last 20m years of his life acquiring artworks - is "20m" a typo?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • spending some $900 million (inflation adjusted) in total. - What is the year it's being adjusted to? I suppose you can use {{inflation}} for this; it would be useful also to know the original value.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • acquired by Rockefeller in 1925 who then purchased, and in 1931 donated - there should be a comma after "donated", to match the comma after "purchased"
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two important series of prints are kept on microfilm; the "Index photographique de l'art en France" and the German "Marburg Picture Index". - should that be a colon instead of a semicolon?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • having previously served on its Real Estate Council (1984) as a trustee of the museum - This parenthetical insertion has an unusual grammar structure that makes it confusing. Does this mean he served as a trustee in 1984? Or is there another meaning that I'm missing?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2011 it purchased the then recently discovered The Falcon's Bath - I'd put a hyphen in "then-recently discovered" because "then" modifies "recently"*
Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section title, "Exhibitions and programs", doesn't describe the section well. The first paragraph is about musical performances and exhibitions, while the second is about popular culture appearances. I'd suggest "Exhibitions and media appearances" or something similar.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will have more comments later. Overall, this is pretty comprehensive and I don't see as many issues here as in other featured article candidates. epicgenius (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, very useful. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll look at this article again on Monday. epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sorry, I totally forgot about this. I don't see any other major issues. epicgenius (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for review and support. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lewismaster[edit]

Congratulations for a great article on a magical place very dear to me. Lewismaster (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have only minor remarks regarding references and Bibliography. Using the program User:Ucucha/HarvErrors a few errors appear as follows:

  • Citations No. 31, 32 and 34 refer to a text by James Rorimer of 1948, which is not listed in the Bibliography.
  • The book by Timothy Husband of 1979 doesn't point to any citation.
  • The book by Charles Little of 2006 doesn't point to any citation.
  • The article by Helmut Nickel, Jeffrey Hoffeld and Florens Deuchler of 1971 doesn't point to any citation.
  • The book by Elizabeth Parker of 1992 doesn't point to any citation.

If those texts are not used for reference in the article, they could be eliminated. Or, if you want to keep them in the Bibliography for completeness, you could erease the |ref=harv voice. Lewismaster (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Will get to these shortly. Ceoil (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the last four. I seem to be confused in my editions of the Rorimer book. Looking. Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the text by Husband of 1979 is still in the Bibliography. Also the Rorimer references need to be corrected. Lewismaster (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of fixing the remaining references. I hope that my changes were right. The article has now my full Support. Lewismaster (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Lewis. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

@Lewismaster, Epicgenius, and Gerda Arendt: do you have anything further to add to the review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks all; Ceoil, I think we still need a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, yes, will ask around. Ceoil (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, since the bot hasn't gone through as yet, I'll just mention here that there's a couple of paras (in Formation and Illuminated manuscripts) that don't finish with citations. Wasn't earth-shattering info so was never going to hold up promotion over them but you might add for completeness... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ok Ian, will do, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • "They became part of the Metropolitan Museum's collection when acquired by financier and philanthropist John D. Rockefeller, Jr." - sounds like this conflates two sets of actions: Rockefeller buys, Rockefeller donates. Needs rewording either way - They were acquired for the museum by..." if this was the case.
  • "The museum has an extensive collection of medieval European frescoes, porcelain statuettes," - really?? There are no medieval European porcelain statuettes. Ivory ones?
  • The main illuminated manuscripts are given little bits, except for the "Hours of Jeanne d'Evreux", which I'd think most people would regard as the most important of the lot.

More later. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, have made these changes and added a brief section on the Jeanne d'Evreux hours. Thanks for edits also. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and Support from KJP1[edit]

Ceoil - Happy to pick up the Source review and will do it today. KJP1 (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sound KJP1. Ceoil (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right - there are a lot so this will have to come in batches, I'm afraid.
Sources
Locations - most, but not all, of the books have publisher locations. My understanding is that they aren't a requirement, but I think they are preferred and the approach should be consistent. As an aside, the journals don't have locations, but they are consistent. Thus, I'd suggest the following need locations/location expansions:
  • Ellis, Lisa; Suda, Alexandra (2016). Small Wonders: Gothic Boxwood Miniatures. Ontario, Canada for consistency?
  • Freeman, Margaret; Rorimer, James (1960). The Nine Heroes Tapestries at the Cloisters. - "New York, NY:" as Barnett/Wu. And does this need an OCLC? It's 937275929.
  • Hayward, Jane; Shepard, Mary; Clark, Cynthia (October 2012). English and French Medieval Stained Glass in the Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art - New Haven, CT.
  • Husband, Timothy (2008). The Art of Illumination: The Limbourg Brothers and the Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry - New York, NY for consistency?
  • Nickel, Helmut; Hoffeld, Jeffrey; Deuchler, Florens (1971). The Cloisters Apocalypse: An Early Fourteenth-Century Manuscript in Facsimile. - "New York, NY:" as Barnett/Wu. And does this need an ISBN or OCLC? It's 978-0-87099-110-3 or 905628180.
  • Reynolds Brown, Katharine (1992). "Six Gothic Brooches at The Cloisters". In Parker, Elizabeth. The Cloisters: Studies in Honor of the Fiftieth Anniversary - You give New York, NY elsewhere when citing essays from this volume. Also, this is the only instance where you don't credit Mary B Shepard.
  • Ridderbos, Bernhard; Van Veen, Henk Th.; Van Buren, Anne (2005). Early Netherlandish Paintings: Rediscovery, Reception and Research. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, for consistency?
  • Rorimer, James; Serrell, Katherine (1972). Medieval Monuments at the Cloisters as They Were and as They Are - New York, NY for consistency. And does this need an OCLC? It's 16972649.
  • Rorimer, James (1951). The Cloisters: The Building and the Collection of Mediaeval Art in Fort Tryon Park. New York, NY for consistency. And does this need an OCLC? The 1946 publication is 222157219 but I can't find a 1951 print on Worldcat.
Titles
  • Stoddard, Whitney (1972). Art and Architecture In Medieval France: Medieval Architecture, Sculpture, Stained Glass, Manuscripts: The Art Of The Church Treasuries - The second colon, after Manuscripts, looks odd. Should it be another comma? Everything I can find online seems to suggest The Art Of The Church Treasuries is a continuance of the list. An alternative would be use the short title of just Art and Architecture In Medieval France.
  • Done as far as here. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dates
  • The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin - the dates here vary somewhat, but this might be in part due to a change of style by the Bulletin. Nevertheless; Deuchler, Florens (March 1971), Freeman, Margaret (December 1956), Husband, Timothy (Fall 2016), Husband, Timothy (Spring 2013), Husband, Timothy (2001), Rorimer, James (May 1948), Rorimer, James (Summer 1942), Rorimer, James (1938), Strouse, Jean (Winter 2000), Tomkins, Calvin (March 1970), Wixom, William (Winter 1988). So, some have months, some have quarters (seasons), and two have neither, just the year. Can they be made consistent, as far as the magazine style allows?
Citations
Online - shall only list any I find issues with.
  • 16, "The Cloisters Museum and Gardens". The Metropolitan Museum of Art. - this is taking me to an intro page, rather than a page specifically about the construction of the Cloisters. Does the link need resetting?
  • 102, "The Bonnefont Cloister Herb Garden" - this is giving me a Page Not Found error.
  • 113, "Press Gardens at The Met Cloisters" - the "Press" is a cut-and-paste error and shouldn't be there. It's just Gardens at The Met Cloisters.
  • 149, "The Cloisters". New York Magazine - being uber-picky but the article only talks of "a complete deck of cards" rather than multiple decks. Perhaps reword to "and a deck of 15th-century playing cards"?
  • 154, "NYU Alumni: Daniel Brodsky". New York University - this takes me to an article about a transplant surgeon, not Mr Brodsky. Suspect it needs resetting.
  • 159, "Annual Report for the Year 2016–17 Exhibitions and Installations" - again, being very picky, the source says that the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam also participated in this exhibition.
Offline - again, only the ones with issues.
  • 3 - The Opening of the Cloisters". The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin - any reason why this isn't listed in the sources? I can find it, and it gives Rorimer as the author, but Worldcat dates it from 1938, [2].
  • 130 - "Monumental Moving Job". New York: Life Magazine, October 20, 1961 - we've no author here. Is there one?
Overall
I don't have the benefit of access to any of the offline Sources, but given that almost all of the online check out (see above for the few queries) and given the nominator's enviable track record, I'm very confident that they will support the text. The online all check out, with just a few queries/link issues that I've detailed. On that basis, and having participated in the Peer Review, I'm very pleased to Support. It's a fabulous article on an amazing museum and deserving of FA status. KJP1 (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really appreciate you going to all this trouble; these are most helpful and working through. Ceoil (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure - it's a wonderful article and I long to visit, although whether I ever will is another matter. Sorry to spoil your run, but I've gone back and added a second Rorimer query to the Sources - Locations section. KJP1 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being one of Wiki's true gentlemen as always, will update when done. Ceoil (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2018 (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_Cloisters/archive1&oldid=860922231"