Talk:Composite miniature painting

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hello! I reviewed this fascinating article you created on composite miniature painting. Two of the current sources are of low-quality, and if possible should be removed and replaced with reliable sources. Medium is not considered reliable per WP:RSP - see WP:MEDIUM specifically, and the Google Arts & Culture citation is not a source at all, Google aggregates information from across the web sort of like a database. Much better to not use it or replace the citation with a reliable source, which seem to be abundant on this topic. Thank you again for creating the article, it's a very nice addition to the encyclopedia.

Netherzone (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Netherzone thank you for your valuable feedback and kind appreciation. The citations have now been updated and the Google Arts & Culture story has been moved to external links as a resource for further exploration. Do you have any thoughts on a DYK nomination of this article? It would great to have it featured on the main page but I'm unable to think of a suitable hook for the same. Some suggestions would be helpful. Regards - DesiBoy101 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@DesiBoy101, I think this would make a terrific DYK that would interest readers. Also, the paintings themselves are out of copyright so an image could be used which always draws people in. The lead image in the article is exceptionally beautiful. Re: hook, I favor hooks that are sort of quirky, and the fact that the main image in a painting (for example a horse) is made up of so many animals is interesting in itself (especially like the rabbit "hooves"). I do think the hook should directly relate to whatever image you decide to use, so maybe that would be a start. Does one of the sources discuss that specific painting, (Pari (fairy) on a Composite Horse, 19th century, Salar Jung Museum)? Maybe something can be taken from that. Good luck, and I'm happy to discuss further. Netherzone (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Netherzone glad to hear that this page would be an interesting read for a wider audience. These paintings and miniatures paintings from India in general are some of the finest and beautiful creations of art. Your analysis of the painting you mentioned highlights the same. I'd put in the current image in the lead since it had a better contrast of background and the figure. However, I prefer this image as it is one of the exquisite examples. Plus, it has been discussed about in a journal (ref 4). It's just that it doesn't look as good in its thumbnail version. So let me know if that would be a concern. Otherwise I think it would be a good image to proceed. As per the reference, a Brontosaurus also features in the trunk of the elephant on the right, which is just mind blowing! Apparently, the unknown artist of this painting had the knowledge of dinosaurs. DesiBoy101 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, DesiBoy, Would you like me to do a little retouching/color correction on the preferred image of the two elephants, as it seems the paper color has faded to a deep sepia tone, and perhaps the paint colors are not as bright as the originals if the photo was taken under incandescent light? I could make the changes to the image, which could always be reverted to the current state if you do not feel it accurately represents the painting. Netherzone (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure @Netherzone, feel free to make the changes. The photo edits would be helpful. Let me know once you're done. DesiBoy101 (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've done some mild color correction on the two elephants image to get rid of the incandescent yellow tint. If you don't think it accurately represents the work, feel free to either undo/revert, or let me know and I will. You can compare the versions in the Commons File History of the of the image below the licensing panes. Netherzone (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the editing work @Netherzone. It certainly looks better than the previous version and thus added it as a lead image on the article. I've also created a DYK nomination featuring this image. Kindly take a look below and feel free to provide your inputs/improvements on the nomination. DesiBoy101 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@DesiBoy101, and others watching this article, do you think there should be a "See also" to Giuseppe Arcimboldo the Mannerist artist who created "composite"-type paintings in the 16th century such as Vertumnus? Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it. While it maybe a good contrast to showcase what other types of composite art forms are seen in world art, the main aspect to highlight here (as See also) is that it belongs to the existing miniature painting tradition in India. Would be happy to get suggestions from others on this. DesiBoy101 (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Elephant Fight, Deccan, India, 19th-century AD, Salar Jung Museum

• ... that composite miniature paintings (example pictured) fused together humans and animals, including dinosaurs? Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44156232
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: p. 418 of the source cited includes the reference to the painting in here

Created by Natasha Khaitan (talk). Nominated by DesiBoy101 (talk) at 14:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Composite miniature painting; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment p. 418 does indeed say the upper elephant trunk is a brontosaurus, but this is not mentioned in the article, which it needs to be. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment @Johnbod. How do you suggest adding this information? In the image description or as a separate paragraph? Dinosaurs, being reptiles, are already mentioned in the History section. DesiBoy101 (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"Dinosaurs, being reptiles, are already mentioned..." - no that's not nearly enough! I'd expand the text a little with a clear mention, and also mention in the (article) picture caption. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is done DesiBoy101 (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

BlueMoonset - thank you for bringing this to notice. Will someone take this up on their own or do I need to mention about this on the DYK talk page? Regards - DesiBoy101 (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• The article was created nearly three months before it was nominated. That is far too stale for the purpose of DYK. Surtsicna (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment @Surtsicna. So apparently the page creation happens when the draft is created, irrespective of the time when it is moved to mainspace. Correct me if I'm wrong so that I can avoid it in the future. Although, would it possible to make an exception to the rule in this case? The page watchers have given optimistic feedback and I'm sure a wider audience would find it interesting. Let me know if that's possible. Regards DesiBoy101 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

No Surtsicna did not notice that it was only moved to mainspace on 3 July, so is ok on timing. But the nom should note such moves. I've removed his symbol thingy. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it went completely over my head. I even looked for a catch like that. Well, I've made a couple of minor changes. I would suggest editing the lead sentence to say when the style was prevalent. I've left tags where I could not make changes myself. I believe I have addressed all the orthography issues but grammar and style need attention from someone who understands the subject matter better. Surtsicna (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna and DesiBoy101: What is the status of this nomination? Is this ready to be approved, does this need a new reviewer, or can this be withdrawn? Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I have inquired about the grammar and style requirements at the DYK project talk page and it seems that they are not as high as I thought. The article is otherwise long enough, comprehensive, fresh, and free of any plagiarism issues as far as I can tell using online tools. The hook is interesting, but I believe it could be more interesting. I do not wish to hold this back any longer, but I will leave a suggestion below. Surtsicna (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that since the 15th century, humans in India could be seen fused with animals, including dinosaurs?

I did a quick search of the source, and I could find a reference to brontosaurus, but not other dinosaurs. Did I miss something?

In the left side elephant's body also represents so many wild and mild animals such as deer, bear, snake, tiger, buffalo, horse, wild boar, dog, panther, wolf, fish and the trunk of the is shown as brontosaurus. The unknown artist of this painting got the knowledge of ancient mammals like brontosaurus.

Would ...that Composite miniature paintings fused together humans and animals, including brontosaurus? be more accurate?

Also, I think "dinasours" may be an incorrect spelling of dinosaur, however there are a lot of variants of English, so both may be correct. Netherzone (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Netherzone No, you did not miss anything. The passage only mentions brontosaurus. The reason to include the generic dinosaur is to grab the attention of the readers as well as make it more generalised. Not many people may know about brontosaurus but will know a dinosaur, even though we can link the wiki page of the former. So, this can possibly be an ALT statement.

Regarding the spelling, I think that update has already been made in the DYK nomination. DesiBoy101 (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• From the lead, this is very confusing "Composite art in context of miniature paintings is the fusion of two or more different animals or animals and human beings to form an image." Ceoil (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Also, am almost certain that the article is mis-titled. Ceoil (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Ceoil: Lead - Composite art can be of different types (sculptures, digital media etc.) thus the context of miniature painting is specified first. Then the possible combinations are explained (animal-animal, animal-human). I think it can be simplified to fusion of animals and humans to form an image if that makes sense and is easier to understand.

  Title - suggestions are welcome. I decided this based upon the existing miniature traditions in Indian painting. These paintings fall under the same umbrella. DesiBoy101 (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That’s better. I appreciate how difficult it is to describe these (wonderful) images. Ceoil (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is a possible rewrite for the second sentence in the lede:

In composite art, painted representations of different animals, or animals and humans are combined to form a larger image within the painting. Netherzone (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change, if anyone objects, it can be reverted. Netherzone (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it looks good. I've just specified it for this particular style since composite art is a broader term (for instance, the example shared by Netherzone above). Thank you for the edits on this Ceoil and Netherzone, appreciate it. DesiBoy101 (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• How to get this DYK nom reviewed asap? It seems to have fallen off the radar. DesiBoy101 (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Brontosaurus??

Not an expert, however I'm going to question where 15th century artists would have been exposed to dinosaur images in general and Brontosaurus specifically. The image used as an example of the incorporation of a Brontosaurus(elephant trunk) has obvious external ears and could be interpreted as an otter or weasel. Is there a good source stating the creature is a Brontosaurus?? Creedweber (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, a source - https://www.jstor.org/stable/44156232 - mentions the brontosaurus specifically - but frankly I would like to see and read that excerpt explicitly - a membership is required to open and read the relevant article entry.

On the other hand the painting itself is stated as being 19th century (not 15th) - entirely possible for the artist to be aware of brontosaurus at that time. As for actual likeness - that can be chalked up to artistic license. 38.103.156.73 (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)