Talk:Joseph (art model)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Tamzin (talk · contribs) 06:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

General discussion

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Hi Ppt91! I'm hoping to get to this tomorrow. So far, both GA reviews I've done have been for someone who knows my style decently well, so I thought I'd ask first, is the approach at Talk:Vermont Public/GA1 one you'd be amenable toward? If not, is there an approach that would work better for you? I can't change my nitpicky ways but otherwise I'm flexible. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Tamzin! Thank you for taking this on. And very thoughtful of you to check in about the approach/format; it looks great to me and I look forward to your feedback. :-) Ppt91^talk 16:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Ppt91: Whew okay, I got really into this! Super interesting article. And conversation fodder for the next time I see my grandmother, who's a big fan of 19th-century French art. Please don't be intimidated by the number of line items below. Almost everything, including the three Ns on the 2b check, ought to be easy fixes. Please feel free to push back against any assessments you dispute. And know that when I say something like "I would do X" or "I strongly suggest X", I mean what I say: That's advice, not something that would stand in the way of a pass. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin Wow, thanks so much! All are super helpful comments, and I especially appreciate your taking a close look at some of the trickier sources (like the exhibition website). I will work on fixing/addressing these and other issues you raised and will ping you when ready. Hopefully no later than Monday. :-) Ppt91^talk 04:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Tamzin Ok, I think I've gone through all! There are a few instances where I responded with "note" although I pretty much agreed with the vast majority of your very helpful and thorough feedback. If I missed anything (or if there is anything that it seems like I may have misunderstood), I'll be happy to fix right away. Looking forward to hearing what you think. :-) And thanks again! Ppt91^talk 18:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Ppt91: Alright, think we're just about there! Just a few things left. Back to you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin Great--I think these are all done now, but please let me know if anything is still missing. You caught a lot of small yet important details I had originally missed, so I am cautious so as not to declare anything prematurely! :-) Ppt91^talk 01:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Ppt91: Alright, think we're golden! This has been fun to work on. Btw, one stray thing I missed till just now, but which could go multiple ways, so I'll just leave for your consideration: We had an article once on Bona Mangangu, which was deleted in 2010. However, the article at the time was just one-sentence unsourced bio and a four-entry bibliography; by now, he may well have become notable. As such, you could redlink him, notwithstanding the normal rule against redlinking non-notable people, since consensus may have changed by now. Further, you could also make it an {{interlanguage link}}, either as {{ill|Bona Mangangu|fr}} (Bona Mangangu) or {{ill|Bona Mangangu|wd=Q892043}} (Bona Mangangu). Anyways, just a thought. Great work once again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

1: Prose/MoS

• Joseph had never done Y
• Please ctrl+f all instances of ," and ." and ,' and adjust per MOS:INOROUT (may want to save this till after resolving § 2b: Citations) Y done
• The usage of "to" in the date ranges in section headings, rather than an en-dash, might go against a strict reading of MOS:DATERANGE, but it's not something I'm personally gonna complain about. Y I changed for consistency
• Saint -Domingue Y done
• the 1791 Haitian Revolution — A not-invalid way to describe it, à la "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", but I think 1791–1804 would be more clear. Y done
• which lasted from 1794 until 1804, before being legalized again by Napoleon — Makes it sound like the end of slavery and the re-legalization were somehow separate events. Recommend when it was legalized again. That said, this is a bit tangential, and a case could be made to move some to an {{efn}}. Y done
• The Raft of the Medusa should be linked on first reference in the body. Y done
• I would move the The Raft of the Medusa (1818 to 1819) subsection heading up by one paragraph. Y done (I was going to do it originally and I think my hesitation resulted from not wanting to leave the first subsection so short, but it does make sense)
• 1818-1819 (two instances) — Change hyphen to en-dash per DATERANGE. Y done
• during the early 19th- century (hyphen to space) Y done
• An Italian art model known as Cadamour (Man, imagine being primarily known to history for being a racist.) Y done (I know, right? And the authors of the book point out the apparent irony in that Italian models, due to the influx of Italian immigrants in the second half of the 19th century, would eventually be considered a "distinct ethnic type" and designated as "colored" by French artists... the depths of European racism are truly mind-boggling.)
• "focal point of the drama, the strongest and most perceptive of the survivors, in a sense, the 'hero of the scene.'" — Use {{' "}}. Y done
• powerful, in good health, which rises above the white bodies, survivors of the raft weakened by disease and fatigue — I would translate that quote as "rising above" here, to avoid ambiguity as to whether it's the body or health that rises. Y done
• a curator at the Louvre in Paris, where Géricault's painting is on permanent display (if that underline's too short: comma after "Paris") Y done
• c.1836 → {{c|1836}} or c. 1836 Y done
• In 1832, Joseph was hired at the l’École des Beaux-Arts de Paris, becoming one of its only three male models. (another comma after another "Paris" :P) Y done
• Peck 2019 has an author name hiding in the title Y done
• a Haitian landowner of mixed-race — either of mixed race, or a mixed-race Haitian landowner Y done
• Would Devil in Christianity or Satan be a better link for the devil? Y done (first one)
• 'There is not in France a single artist, painter or sculptor who does not know Joseph...the most handsome model who ran the ateliers of Paris!' (Le Figaro, 1858) → {{-'}}There is not in France a single artist, painter or sculptor who does not know Joseph ... the most handsome model who ran the ateliers of Paris!' (Le Figaro, 1858) Y done (linked to another article, as the quote is included there; let me know if you think it still needs to be included in the note in its entirety)
• Bona Mangangu suggests that surviving contemporary accounts of Joseph–including an 1840 passage by the French writer Émile de La Bédollière where Joseph, longing for his "his native land," is described as constantly distracted– — Change en-dashes to em-. Y done (changed to direct quotes from the scholar who analyzed the source and included their English translation as a note)

  Would recommed [Black person] over [black] for consistency and the disfavored status of the phrasing "a black". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Y agreed (the only reason I had it with lower case was to retain the original formatting and glad to change it)

2a: Ref layout

• In Notes 2 and 3, it's possible to simply cite the source in question as a nested ref rather than say "see...". Alternately you can do {{harvnb|Mourgues|2019}} and {{harvnb|Alhadeff|2020}} to link to them. Y done (use harvnb for all except those not cited elsewhere; let me know if this looks consistent or whether I should edit further)

  Yeah, that works. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Would strongly suggest including an English translation for note 3. Happy to help in that regard if desired. Y done (replaced the translation per above :-) )

  Yeah, that works! Just to make sure I haven't lost track, are there at this point any original translations in the article that don't have the original French included by footnote? Per WP:NONENG, for a translated passage where you're the translator, you should include the original as well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  all fixed now I believe! directly in the text for a few singular words and phrases translated from French newspaper articles and provided the entire Le Figaro quote as a separate note as well as one for Mangangu quote; everything else cited should be from English or existing English translations only Ppt91^talk 01:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

2b: Citations

To the extent I am able to access them, I check ledecites, MINREF-required cites, and every prime-numbed cite as of 1146575967, plus any cites bundled therewith for a specific claim. I use Y for "verifies", Y for "verifies but with some caveat", N for "minor issue", and N for "significant issue".

• Mourgues 2019.
  • Name N I see a difference between le nègre and le Nègre. It's like how someone could be widely known as "John the carpenter", but that wouldn't make it accurate to call him "John the Carpenter" as if it were a name or a nickname. Mourgues only capitalizes the N in the title of Brune's painting; she uses a lowercase n when speaking in her own voice, as does the 1858 Figaro piece she cites. And it's hard to say what's intended in Brune's painting's title: French works' titles are usually in sentence case, but not always. Absent further evidence of le Nègre being used as a quasi-surname, I think this should be lowercased. And in either case, I would suggest briefly explaining what nègre means, either parenthetically or in an {{efn}}. Y done (I changed to lower-case in lead and linked to en-wiki Negro and sourced it to Dictionary of Artists' Models (2013); do you think this is sufficient?)

    Y'know, I thought this formatting wasn't allowed, but apparently MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID only applies to the reiteration of the title. However, please create Joseph le nègre and Joseph le Nègre as redirects per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. (If fr:Joseph Nègre ever gets an enwiki article there will be a need for a hatnote, but none is needed yet.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

    • Y done (I believe both redirects should work correctly now) Ppt91^talk 01:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Arrivals in Marseille and Paris (also looking at Allen 2003) Y Is there a reason to hedge with "he is said to have"? Y done (removed "is said")
  • Beaux-Arts Y
  • Devil painting N Mostly verifies, but the quote is from Butterfield-Rosen Y done (thanks for catching, it was supposed to be Butterfield-Rosen)
• Ahdifard 2023 N I'm on the fence as to whether WP:HEADLINES rules out using this quote, but lean toward excluding. It is not clearly a statement in the author's own voice, rather than something added after the fact by an editor who may lack expertise. Is there a better quote that could convey the same thing? note: I agree with you and have been trying to find a better quote; thought this one would work due to it being 1) Getty website 2) listed author, but I am not sold on it either. Will see if I can find a better replacement.
• Getty Museum 2023. This is a tertiary source; a secondary source would be preferable, but it's still reliable. note: as above, I've generally been quite reluctant to overcite the online exhibition and find it odd they have not even provided the names of specific scholars, especially given how understudied the topic is... on the other hand, they do provide some really helpful details, but I try to find alternative whenever possible
  • Date and place of birth Y Is there a reason to hedge with "it is believed", though? note: I've seen this phrasing (or along these lines) in several sources, so thought it'd be good to keep it, as the historical records scarce/non-existent so it's still speculative

    Fair enough. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  • 9th or 7th arrondissement N The source is ambiguous in describing this. Given that it's a tertiary source, a more clear statement from a secondary source should be found. note: changed to "Much of the Haitian diaspora was concentrated in the 9th or 17th arrondissement, neighborhoods popular with contemporary artists, art models, and communities of color, including Alexandre Dumas and Laure." -- I think this should be sufficient without speculating about where he lived specifically? Happy to adjust further.

    I don't know, to me that's not a very clear statemet. Iit could also be read to say that many like Joseph lived in the 9th or 17th, without saying that he specifically did. I tried to search for a better source just now and came up empty. Given the source's relatively low reliability compared to most others in this article, I remain very hesitant. Perhaps in-text attribution? A 2023 digital exhibition by the J. Paul Getty Museum suggests that he lived in the 9th or 17th arrondissement like many other immigrants and those involved in the arts, something like that? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(she|they|xe) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

    • I definitely see your point! I changed it to A 2023 digital exhibition by the J. Paul Getty Museum suggests that he lived in the 9th or 17th arrondissement like many other immigrants and those involved in the arts, including Laure, a Black female model who worked with Édouard Manet. per your suggestion, but also happy to remove entirely until I find a better source if you think this is still a stretch? Ppt91^talk 01:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Posed for man in back in The Raft of the Medusa (also looking at McCoy 2021) Y
  • tête d'étude Y note: this is further confirmed in Masterpieces of Painting: J. Paul Getty Museum. Scott Allan, Davide Gasparotto, Peter Björn Kerber, Anne T. Woollett. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. 2019 which is the following footnote
  • "most handsome model" Y note: leaving for now, hopefully could find alternative
• Solly 2017. Mixed bag
  • Joseph being in The Raft of the Medusa Y
  • Inspiration for The Raft of the Medusa Y Not verified in source, but source not strictly required for such verifiable and uncontroversial details. However, Getty Museum 2023 does verify this, so might be worth citing. Y done (if I understand correctly it referring to "inspiration for a third...")
    • Publication year of The Raft of the Medusa N Source says he modeled for it in 1818 without giving a publication year; linked The Raft of the Medusa says 1818 or 1819. Y done (added additional source detailing when he started working on the composition from Met Museum Bulletin article; let me know if I should move things around

    Still not sure we have a source saying it's an 1819 painting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

    • Agreed. Changed to reflect the date range--should be that way across the article; please let me know if I missed anything :-) Ppt91^talk 01:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Doridou-Heim 2019 Y
• Allan et al. 2019 Y
• Brathwaite 2023 Y
• McCoy 2021 and Combis 2019, regarding Géricault's abolitionism Y
• Berger & Johnson 1969 Y
• Bar 2017 Y
• Peck 2019 Y
• Butterfield-Rosen 2019 Y
• Combis 2019, regarding "vile profession" Y
• Nayrolles 2010 Y Verifies; however, should probably mention in the body that the painting exhibited in 1865 was likely older, rather than just in a footnote. Y done

2c: OR

• The artist closely studied Joseph's physique before incorporating his torso into the final composition which is evident in the model's back study completed between 1818 and 1819. — Is this sourced to something? I don't think it's sufficiently self-evident that it can be said unsourced. note: I am quite certain there was a source, but for some reason can't locate it now, so changed to "During the same time, Géricault completed a study of the model's back." to avoid OR and will edit if I can find support for the original statement.

  Ugh. Hate that feeling. Somewhere in Mike Tyson's tattoos I cite a source that has a great quote about how different Tyson is from Arthur Ashe, and I've checked every damn one it could be and still can't find it... Ugh. Anyways, yeah, no worries. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

2d: Copyvio

• a moment from the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Méduse, which ran aground off the coast of today's Mauritania on 2 July 1816 For a bit I thought this was copyvio, because it's been used in quite a few places. You've adequately attributed the content, but given the existence of many sources copying the same content, you may want to add {{copied}} to the talkpage to make it extra-clear in the future that this is permissible reuse, not copyvio. Y done (added it to talk page, though it's my first time using this template in addition to edit summary attribution and hope it will suffice--let me know if not!)
• Otherwises passes copyvio check. Y great! :-)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.