Talk:Lise Tréhot/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 07:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scoresheet

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: ; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: agreed to differ.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	no sign of it
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is scope for more on critical reaction but what is there now is probably sufficient for GA.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All are PD.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	relevance: agreed to differ; captions: ok
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Lead

The lead is too short; it needs to summarize each section of the article in turn. The fact that Lise seems to have been Renoir's mistress and that he continued to support Jeanne, presumed to be their daughter, are certainly relevant facts to include in the lead. Bazille needs to be mentioned also, for example.

I'm open to expanding it, but if you look at the current character count for readable prose, it meets WP:LEADLENGTH. Since Lise was not a "mistress" in the contemporary use of the term, I've avoided using that word per my comments on the talk page and as a result of a discussion I had with User:Flyer22 who specializes in human sexuality topics. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, then. I've no opinion on terminology, only that she's often called that in the sources I've seen. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Viriditas on both counts (the lead length and use of the word mistress). Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Flyer. However, I'm happy to expand the lead. Chiswick Chap has made many excellent points in this review. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Body

There is a slight hesitation on the number of paintings: more than twenty, as many as thirty, twenty-two by Renoir, at least twenty-four. Perhaps the wording can be simplified and tidied up slightly.

I agree. I'm leaning towards "more than twenty", since I could only personally confirm less than 25. I realize that one or two sources have used 30 or "as many as 30" so I'm wondering how they arrived at that number. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, go for "more than twenty" then.

Partly fixed.[1] Let me know if further changes are needed on this point. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"A document from this time describes Tréhot's profession as a dressmaker." Just say she was a dressmaker: the article is about her, not documentation.~~

The point is that the factual nature of her life is debated. Other than the document, it is not really known if she was or worked as a dressmaker. Attributing these facts in such a way is intended to show the ambiguity of what is truly known about her, and the sources make this clear. I don't think we can actually say "she was a dressmaker". Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see how else we'd know about her other than from documents of the time. I do hope you don't intend to argue about everything.

I'm not arguing, just pointing out the reason for the wording. If I can, I'll to add a footnote to explain. Thanks for pointing this out. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"unsuccessful and rejected by the Salon": are these synonyms? If not, what does "unsuccessful" mean? And in whose opinion? It seems a citation is missing here.~~

I believe it is sourced to House 2013, which is the first citation to follow everything that is sourced behind it. I can probably clean up the wording. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "unsuccessful".[2] Currently sourced to House 2013, p. 29. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need at least one painting in Modeling period, perhaps Lise (Lise With Umbrella). I know you've put it in the list but that doesn't help the reader who's proceeding from the top. One solution would be to put a few paintings in the body of the article (say, Lise Sewing, Lise (Lise With Umbrella), and one of the nudes, and you'll need Landscape with Two People for Bazille/the lost work), and move the list to its own article.

I could probably use internal anchors to link to the existing images inline. But, I don't see how moving the list to a separate article is helpful. I definitely want to keep it here as part of her biography. It's what she's known for, after all. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are definite arguments on both sides, or I'd have insisted on its immediate removal; but lists are extremely undesirable in text articles. You make it clear we have a WP:COATRACK issue here, if the article is basically about paintings of Lise rather than the woman herself. Perhaps what's required is a name change, "Impressionist paintings of L. T." or something of that kind, seeing how we know hardly anything else about her.

There's no coatrack issue. This is a biography of a French art model, and the list of paintings shows the work she is known for in that role. I just took a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#Lists_of_works_and_timelines to be safe, and everything looks fine. I'm curious, why would a list of her work as a model be undesirable? Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, a list is undesirable if it reduces readability (not an issue here), breaks up the flow, or unbalances the article. I do think the flow is affected, as it would certainly be better if the current small discussion of the paintings were alongside the images in question, as I've said above.

As I've said, I can link to the images inline using either external file links or anchors to the images in the appendix, which is why I feel shrinking the image size in the list is a mistake. This is a biography of Lise Tréhot first and foremost. However, I think it is is noteworthy to use an image of at least one notable appearance as a model and comment on it inline, so in that respect, yes, I agree, one painting may be needed in the body, but I still maintain that the appendix is the best place for them at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right. You know my preference is for images beside text.

(I've split the following off as a separate item:) * This article is in my view only barely a biography, and substantially about the paintings. I have come to the opinion that the point of this article is "Renoir (and Bazille)'s paintings of Lise Tréhot" - for indeed we know almost nothing of her beyond the paintings. But the key issue here is balance; and despite your straight denial, this article is indeed a list of major paintings, seriously overbalancing a brief text about an otherwise non-notable person (since association with the Impressionists would not confer notability). The article makes sense as a discussion of a group of paintings about a single subject: not as an article about that shadowy subject. The article therefore requires substantial reworking, with the current material as (useful and well-written) context for an expanded discussion of the paintings, which must cover the issues of criticism and scandalperceived impropriety in the paintings advised below.

I think this article meets all the necessary requirements for a biography. I don't really know what you are getting at when you refer to a "scandal". This article is not a list of major paintings, it's a biography which features her appearances as a model in an appendix. As for discussing more about the paintings in the body, I'm sure that's possible. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More on paintings is required - go ahead.

This article is not (a) a biography which features her appearances as a model in an appendix (non-notable person, unbalanced article); nor (I agree) (b) a list article (not eligible for GA); but (c) an account of a group of major paintings which needs to be supported by a bit of biography as context (done) and a crisp summary of critical reaction to the paintings (needs work), a change of title, and a bit of work to the lead.

This article is most certainly a biography under all Wikipedia definitions, and reflected by biographical sources like the Dictionary of Artists' Models. We also have ample precedent for biographical articles about artists' models as reflected by the hundred or so biographies found in Category:Artists' models. As such, this article is correctly titled as "Lise Tréhot". Analogously, this is no different than a biography of an actor appearing in a series of plays or films, a biography of a fictional character appearing in a series of works, or a biography of a famous animal. In none of these examples, would we change the title or upmerge the information into a parent topic when they can stand by themselves. For the record, I've worked on all of these types of biographies that I've listed. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've discussed this sufficiently to record my concerns about balance and coatrack. Since I already accepted your position, I'm striking this item. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Summer is helpfully named (Gypsy) in the table, but not in the text, where it would add to the explanation of casualness. The need to scroll a long way down is awkward, and again it would be much better to have a thumbnail near the text where these images are named and discussed.

I've boldly added the name The Bohemian as many people will recognise this name for the painting.

Given Lise's poverty, the prices realized by Renoir's paintings of her are of some interest; see e.g. Christies : Lise with a bouquet of flowers
- Good point, and it would be interesting to comment on that, but without a secondary source, it's quite difficult. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christies is a reliable source for the price it realized, and independent of Lise and Renoir for that matter. Given that it's a peripheral point for the article, I suggest we simply use it. If you feel doubtful about it, state "Christies recorded a price of .. at auction on ..."

I'll think about it, but I generally only write biographies from secondary sources about the topic. In this particular case, it would be a primary source about the painting, which is a dealbreaker for me. It's also an obscure work, which means the likelihood of secondary sources about Lise and this painting are extremely low. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reactions of the few critics mentioned (Astruc, Collins, House) to the paintings of Lise are interesting and highly relevant. What about other critics who commented on Renoir's paintings of Lise and the diverse ways he depicted her? The article feels very sketchy on this point. See for example Kathryn Hughes on Juliet Heslewood's Lover: Portraits by 40 Great Artists (Frances Lincoln, 2011), for example: she notes that " Lise with a Parasol (1867), got past the censors at the Salon, but still provoked sniggering from the press." Seems a quotable fact.

The NGA mentions the "voluptuous nudity" and the controversial impropriety of Renoir's Diana, which seemed more "flesh-and-blood" than "ancient goddess". I think the themes of propriety, nudity, scandal, the Salon and the real-life mistress Lise need to be discussed in some detail in the article - probably a whole section.

There's no scandal discussed there, and there really isn't much to go on in that link, but I think you're right about adding more material about Diana if I can find it. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This raises the awkward question of why we have an article on Lise in the first place: clearly, we are quite close to a coatrack on Renoir's paintings (a worthy topic), as Lise is notable only because of her involvement with him as model and mistress. Given this dependency, notability demands that the scandalous nature of the relationship and the perceived propriety of the paintings at the time be analysed in full. We ought to have something not only from modern critics but from contemporary newspapers and Salon members. This might be in the same (new) section just proposed; it might be called "Contemporary reactions" or "Perceived scandal", say.

I've reviewed the sources. What exactly was "scandalous" about their relationship other than the fact that they were unmarried? In more recent years, some information has come to light indicating that they had children together out of wedlock. That's the only "scandal" here, but it's handled in an encyclopedic manner. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the critical reactions to the flesh-and-blood appearance of the paintings. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so, if possible, only in the context of her work as an art model and the reception of her appearance as a model. There is additional information on this point that I have yet to add because I felt what appears there is sufficient for her biography. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List

The list is of interest but may fall foul of the rules on list inclusion, and would therefore be safer as a separate article. If it is to stay here it might be better to make all the images 70% of their current size.
- I don't see a problem with this list. Can you talk about how the rules might be against it or why the image size should change? Just curious. Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List inclusion is among the GA criteria; I believe reviewers have rather wide discretion here, but it's a black mark all the same. As for image size, the list will look neater and be smaller if the images are reduced a little as suggested.

Because we are dealing with paintings, I don't really understand the insistence on shrinking the images, but I'm certainly willing to meet you halfwway. I shrank them to 70% to see what they would look like, but this was far too small for my eyes. I then increased the pixels from 84 to 90 as a compromise.[4] I hope that's okay. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the name of the artist needs to be in a column in the table (you could use and rename the last column as there's no need for a separate one just for refs).
- Why do we need the name of the artist? I like to keep refs in a separate column and it is a common style. Can you point me to another list you prefer? Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly provide the artist's names, thanks, either in a new column or the old one.

So, just so we are clear, you want me to add Renoir's name 22 times and Bazille's twice, correct? Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be the "Pharoah had 10,000 chariots" way (a square array of chariot hieroglyphs, 100 x 100); a less repetitive alternative would be to state at the top that all are by Renoir unless otherwise stated, and name Bazille twice.

So basically revise what I already have in the "Selected works as model" section? Doesn't it already say that? Help me out here. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That section's fine. I'm just asking for the painters to be named in the table, as it isn't immediately obvious which works are by Bazille. You could treat Renoir as the default and only name Bazille but I think it's actually simpler to do the 22 + 2 naming bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The painting-within-a-painting row of the table needs to name both artists in a suitable way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Type column is not worth the space it occupies, as all the paintings are "Oil on canvas". I suggest you delete the column and add this fact to the text above the table. You could adjust the wording to read "at least twenty-four oil on canvas paintings", for instance.

Perhaps, but every "list of paintings" anywhere contains that standard variable. I dislike it myself, but it seems necessary if only by convention. Then again, I could use the space. Let me think on this. Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're going to have a Type column with all entries the same, you can't really object to a Painter column with not quite all entries the same, and it would actually help the reader. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the difficulty we are having with this list concerns the focus of the article, not the space occupied by the list, which I have felt uncomfortable with from the start; but I now feel I was wrong to attempt to reduce it in size piecemeal. See "Action" below: please reply there so we have a single discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied. And after thinking about this for several days and comparing sources, I'm convinced the table is appropriate only to this article, nowhere else. Further, I have added internal anchors to all of the images so that the reader can easily visit the images in the table making it useful and important. Finally, when the reader does visit the table via the links in the body, they are given additional context and information about Tréhot's work. I intend to expand this format and structure as necessary. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you know I think we have the wrong article here, but since the GA reviewer's job is to focus on the article in hand, I agree that this approach should work and lead to a successful GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Action

* On reflection on the discussion above, I believe the central issue here is whether this article can be a valid biography, or must have the group of paintings as its theme: almost all the other comments relate to this. There are other articles on artists' models, and while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good guide, it is clear that historical biographies are not necessarily required to reach the same notability of a living subject. It is also clear that the group of paintings would make a fine article, supported by some biographical detail similar to what is written here. The article as it is, however, with the title and apparatus of a biography but the list content of a group of paintings article, is divided in its loyalties. If we are not to fail this GAN now and await a paintings article, the article needs to be made a definite biography. To this end:

~~1) the lead must be extended as already requested.~~

~~2) the text about modelling for Renoir and Bazille must be supported with a small number (say, three or four) images beside the text.~~

3) the list must be removed as it unbalances the article, and is to a large extent off-topic, concerning the paintings not the biography; it could with benefit form a separate list article, or indeed an article on the group of paintings.

~~4) the biography needs some other changes to the text discussed above, such as an account of critical reaction to Lise's appearance as a model.~~

I hope we can agree on these actions without further ado. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed your major concerns regarding the status of this "biography" several times. I disagree with your assessment and argument that it is not a biography, and I've explained why up above. The appendix list does not detract in any way from the biographical content. I think your insistence on pushing this particular point is unusual and generally unsupported by our best practices, so I hope you will stop insisting on this view from here in out. This is a biography of an art model with an appendix of the work she did. I've already addressed this point several times. I've agreed to expand the lead if necessary, even though I currently meets our accepted lead length, and at least one editor has chimed in to confirm this point. And while I'm willing to accommodate your recommendation for expanding the lead, even though it is already at an appropriate length, you go too far insisting on changes that are neither necessary or required. For example, you insist that additional images must be added, when this is purely a matter of style and editorial approach, and has nothing to do with the review. And again, I've said I'm willing to consider your opinion, but your insistence that it "must" be added is way over the top. The structure of this biography conforms to and follows our requirements for layout. And If needed, links can be added to the paintings referred to in the text. You've also strangely insisted that the list of her works unbalances her biography, which I'm afraid is an unsupported opinion. It does not need to be removed for any good reason. Finally, you say that the biography needs additional critical commentary than what it already has. And while I'm again, willing to accommodate your concerns, they are not very important or necessary. In conclusion, I've shown that I'm willing to a accommodate your reasonable concerns and requests, but I've also demonstrated in the above discussion why the list is being used appropriately and on topic, so I'm not willing to remove it. There is no good reason why a biography of an art model cannot contain an appendix listing her appearances as an art model. Perhaps in the future, there will be enough material for a separate article, but at this juncture, there is nothing wrong with listing the paintings as a model. I acknowledge that you may have a different opinion about the scope and focus of this article, but declaring this a non-biography, suggesting that the title be changed, and recommending that a simple list of her known work be removed is not very helpful or constructive. This is a biography of an art model, and it covers the major points of her life and is appropriately illustrated in the appendix. You may disagree with this scope and layout, as well as the use of a list of her works, but it is entirely supported. Again, this is a matter of style and editorial judgment and has no real bearing on the GA criteria. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made constructive suggestions throughout, and you have consistently argued rather than taking action. Since I assume good faith on your part also, I will await your "accommodation" of my "reasonable concerns and requests", and will be happy to pass it as a GA when this has been done. I believe the list is excessive but agree it's a matter of judgement as far as this article is concerned. I do think the article would read better if some images were alongside the text, as is usual, but as this is a mere matter of convenience and readability, have it your way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I have acknowledged your constructive suggestions several times and praised your review in response to another editor up above. However, there is a big difference between constructive criticism and insisting that something must be done or else. Thanks for your input and I will consider your remarks and make whatever changes I can as time permits. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun taking "action" by modifying the links to the paintings to point only to the table, as it was designed explicitly for this purpose.[5] Readability is enhanced by keeping editors only on this page, focused on the content. If they wish to visit the external painting, they may do so from the table. The point is that Tréhot's modeling within this period is communicated by each image in the context of the table while the biography focuses solely on content. Any editor can easily view the linked the painting, visit the external article if necessary, or return to the biography. This is only the first of my updates. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to see constructive action, which looks certain to end in a GA, and I await the rest of the updates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]