Jump to content

Talk:A Boy with a Flying Squirrel/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 07:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to review the article.

Review

[edit]

Lead section/infobox

[edit]
  • The lead section needs to be expanded so that it summarises more of the information in the article. Green tickY
  • Unlink London (here and elsewhere in the article (see MOS:OL). Green tickY
  • Link exhibition. Green tickY
Happy to concur. AM

1 Background

[edit]
  • I would link Copley the first time he is mentioned in the main article (named in full, see MOS:DUPLINK, as information in the lead section should also appear in the main article. Green tickY
  • The painting is known by more that one name (e.g. see Ref 2 (Roberts 2007)), and I think this is worth noting. Green tickY
  • I’m not sure motifs is needed, the sentence seems to make sense without the term. Green tickY
  • Link portraitist (Portrait); squirrels. Green tickY

2 Description

[edit]
  • Link flying squirrel; mahogany; membrane (Patagium). Green tickY
  • a symbol for patience and perseverance – Roberts (2007) adds “as well as the proper Lockean education of the sitter, whose refinement was indicated by his or her successful domestication of the wild creature”.
  • @Amitchell125: I omitted the "Lockean education" aspect since I feel it would be going on quite an irrelevant tangent to explain what exactly "Lockean education" means to unfamiliar readers (and to be honest, I don't really understand what it is either). I did include the refinement/civilizing part though in Background. GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 18:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralPoxter Yep, I guessed that, no worries as far as I'm concerned. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roberts (2014) p. 16 – no mention of her (unorthodox?) view of the work as a marine painting. Green tickY
  • Um, this seems to be a rather odd analogy, which I think is really meant to emphasize the "transportation" aspect of the painting, which is already summarized/covered in the History section. I feel like this is best left out as it seems more of an interesting device Roberts uses to support her analysis. Besides, Roberts clarifies that she didn't really mean the painting to be a "maritime" painting in the sense that it depicts seascapes or ships, but I still see the potential for confusion if incorporated in the article. GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 22:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. AM
  • Roberts (2007) - "is the only single-sitter profile painting he produced in America". It looks as if Roberts’ articles need to be checked through for further information.

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3.1 Transatlantic crossing

[edit]
  • Link pastels (Pastel). Green tickY
  • mercantile aesthetic negotiators – is this an actual term used in the literature, or just a term coined by Roberts? Green tickY
I strongly suspect there isn't one, and don't see why a team of mercantile aesthetic negotiators shouldn't be simplified to 'a team'. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, done. GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 15:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3.2 Reception

[edit]
  • Link exhibition. Green tickY
Understood. AM
  • one of Copley's most significant works – some editors avoid significant as it’s often unclear if anything is being signified. Is there a better word that could be used? Green tickY
It looks better now, thanks for replacing an ambiguous term. AM
  • Who was William Dunlap? Green tickY
  • Who was Samuel Greene Wheeler Benjamin (and would Samuel Benjamin suffice)? Green tickY
  • Henry Theodore Tuckerman – amend to 'Tuckerman' (full names are not included twice in articles). Green tickY
  • Barratt, Carrie Rebora; Staiti, Paul (1995) says other parallels were made with Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin’s works (on p. 218). Other details about the painting from this page seem not to have been included in the article. See also other pages, e.g. p. 64 (on the use of squirrels as boys’ pets). Green tickY
  • I’m unsure (and other readers may not be sure) what a European devotional picture is. Could some clarification be provided? Green tickY

3.3 Significance

[edit]
  • Roberts (2007) says "The transatlantic triumph of Boy with a Squirrel has long served as an originary episode in histories of American Art." and "the tale of its passage has frequently anchored broader comparative studies attempting to discover emerging distinctions between American and European art." I would include such details. Green tickY

3.4 Provenance and exhibition

[edit]
  • Unlink Washington, D.C.. Green tickY
Whoops, struck that by accident. Done now. --GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 15:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4 References

[edit]
  • Ref 1 is taken from this, so I would replace the source. Green tickY
  • As there are only a few sources listed, I would simplify this section by combining the book and journal sources into one alphabetical list, and putting the online sources into the references section. Green tickY
  • Bayley – there is (imo) a better url available at: https://archive.org/details/lifeworksofjohns00bayl/page/n8/mode/2up. Green tickY
[edit]
  • Check the author list for Barratt, Carrie Rebora; Staiti, Paul is complete, as it seems not to be. Green tickY

Final comment

[edit]
  • Further reading or inclusion in the article? Green tickY
  1. Prown - https://archive.org/details/artasevidencewri0000prow/page/156/mode/2up?q=squirrel
  2. Massachusetts Historical Society - https://archive.org/details/lettersandpaper00pelhgoog/page/n74/mode/2up?q=squirrel

On hold

[edit]

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 5 July to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. An interesting read! Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: Thanks for your thorough GAC review! I did my best to address your comments, and please let me know if there's more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talkcontribs) 22:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing now, as the article is in good shape. Well done! Amitchell125 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]