Jump to content

Talk:Napoleonic looting of art/GA1

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

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.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: FredModulars (talk · contribs) 03:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad for this to have languished at GAN for so long. Expect comments soon. FredModulars (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First glance

[edit]

Article passes the GA criteria for GA5 (stable) and GA6 (illustrated). There seem to be no issues with either. FredModulars (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • Why is the title translated into only Italian?
    • This article was originally created by translating from Italian wikipedia. Should I add the French translation as well? —WS
      • Add French definitely, and if you'd like to keep Italian put both in a footnote. Once I look through the article, I'll circle back and see if Italian is necessary or not.
  • Right of conquest is linked twice in the same paragraph.
    •  Done —WS
  • Congress of Vienna is linked twice.
    •  Done —WS
  • "These seizures redefined the right of conquest in Europe, and caused a surge of interest..." remove the comma.
    •  Done —WS
  • "returned; but many" replace the semicolon with a comma.
    • The use of the semicolon was intended for clarity, since it's followed shortly by a serial list. MOS:SEMICOLON allows this use as long as the two clauses are independent: I'm happy to switch this to a comma if the semicolon is actually more confusing or split the sentence in two if that would be better. —Wingedserif (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are two independent clauses, but I believe a comma + conjunction (but) would be more appropriate. Keep it if you'd like to, though, for one punctuation point which can be accepted as a comma or semicolon won't destroy this review.
        •  Done —WS
  • Remove the comma before due.
    •  Done —WS

I'll try to get to Background later tonight, but I probably won't be able to. I'll start on that tomorrow if not. FredModulars (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
  • Information is all referenced. There is a bit of an overreliance on some, specifically #3, but nothing concerning.
  • "Nicolas Bergeat" notable enough to be redlinked?
  • "The Musée des Monuments Français, whose collection would later be transferred to the Louvre and the Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon are two prominent examples of art museums." Comma after Louvre.
    •  Done —WS
  • "The new science museums..." it sounds like science museums have been talked about previously. However, all that is said is that the French people wanted more public art exhibitions. This seems out of place.
    • Added new wording to transition to that comment. Most of the sources discuss art looting: I had tried to make sure to comment throughout that this also included the contents of cabinets of curiosity and other natural science collections that are less ... culturally dramatic than the many, large, famous paintings that were taken. What do you think? —Wingedserif (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lenoir is linked in the first sentence of paragraph four, but he has already been linked previously.
    •  Done —WS
  • Denon and Louvre should be linked in the caption of the second image.
    •  Done —WS
  • Link Napoleon.
    •  Done —WS
  • Napoleon should be introduced. He comes in abruptly as the man who appointed Denon.
    • WS — Did you forget to tick this off? I think this has been completed.
  • Link to French campaign in Egypt and Syria.
    •  Done —WS
  • Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon is linked twice: "...while less important works were distributed among new French provincial museums like those in Lyon or Marseille, then to smaller museums like Reims, Tours or Arles".
    •  Done —WS
  • "Reims, Tours or Arles" Museums or cities?
  • Full names of and link Carracci and Perugino. I don't think they are mentioned before.
    • Partially done, need to find which Carracci specifically. —WS
      • The vagueness here is unfortunately due to the wording of the Wescher source: "Per mostrare al pubblico il significato del nuovo metodo e mettere a tacere le critiche, già nel 1798 la direzione del Louvre aveva esposto due opere di Carracci e Perugino restaurate per metà." The closest previous reference to a Carracci painter is 20 pages before. The index of artworks in the Wescher book also lists three of the Carraccis as having works taken—Annibale, Ludovico, and Agostino—so I doubt we can infer a first name. Do you think it'd be better to clarify that in the text (eg, "and a work by a painter in the Carracci family") or just remove it entirely? —Wingedserif (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justifications for seizures

[edit]
  • Information is all referenced. There is a bit of an overreliance on #1, but there is nothing alarming.
  • "The French government planned to increase museum collections through the confiscation of foreign artworks, as a show of national strength." no comma between the independent and dependent clause
    •  Done —WS
  • The third paragraph introduces these three very interesting but also out of context quotes on slavery and the artworks. I'm not sure if slavery is a symbol for something else, but if it is really slavery then we aren't given context to. "Immoral works", "why should the masterpieces of the Greek republic decorate a country of slaves?", and "soiled too long by slavery" should receive some elaboration as a justification in their minds. I believe I understand the idea that slavery in countries with the artworks is a justification for taking the artworks, but I think you could add a transition which includes the view of slavery at the time by France compared to these other countries. Something like that.
    • Added a little text, expanding from the Gilks source. I don't remember seeing an extended discussion of this rhetoric elsewhere, but it's possible that a more general source comparing French culture at the time to the rest of Europe might be helpful. I did include a parenthetical reference to Haiti, to indicate how opportunistic this argumentation was. Let me know if I should keep digging/how it reads to you. Thanks! —Wingedserif (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good stuff. It gives much-needed context and explains the argument. The addition of Haiti might be unnecessary; while it is good to note the hypocrisy and opportunism, this may confuse the reader. Perhaps reword it, such as adding "though..." or "..., however".
  • Gregoire has already been linked (3rd paragraph)
    •  Done —WS

Break - duplicate links

[edit]

So, I've noticed this article has a big issue of duplinks. The duplinks are:

  • Wicar, first paragraph of Italy;
  • Directorate, first paragraph of Italy;
  • Armistice of Cherasco, Sardegna and Turin;
  • Pinacoteca di Brera, first paragraph of Austrian Lombardy;
  • Armistice of Bologna, first paragraph Rome and the Papal States (shouldn't armistice be capitalized?);
  • Treaty of Tolentino, second paragraph of Rome and the Papal States;
  • Villa Albani, sixth paragraph of Rome and the Papal States;
  • Vivant Denon, second paragraph of Tuscany;
  • Horses of Saint Mark, second paragraph of Victory celebrations of 1798;
  • Apollo Belvedere, second paragraph of Victory celebrations of 1798;
  • Venus de' Medici, second paragraph of Victory celebrations of 1798;
  • campaign in Egypt and Syria, Egypt and Syria;
  • Vivant Denon, Egypt and Syria;
  • Gaspard Monge, Egypt and Syria;
  • National Museum of Natural History, fourth paragraph of Restitutions;
  • Stendhal, sixth paragraph of Restitutions;
  • Treaty of Tolentino, sixth paragraph of Restitutions;
  • Vivant Denon, sixth paragraph of Restitutions;
  • Antonio Canova, seventh paragraph of Restitutions;
  • Treaty of Tolentino, seventh paragraph of Restitutions;
  • Maesta, tenth paragraph of Restitutions;
  • Horses of Saint Mark, 11th paragraph of Restitutions;
  • Treaty of Paris, third paragraph of Legacy;
  • The Wedding at Cana, fifth paragraph of Legacy;
  • Rosetta Stone, sixth paragraph of Legacy;
  • British Museum, sixth paragraph of Legacy; and
  • Codex Atlanticus, Artworks taken. (Codex Atlanticus might slide since it is technically a caption, but unless you have a valid reason I would remove).

Note: You don't have to get through all of these right now, and, unless you really want to, you don't have to check off each one. I'm just expecting all of these to be removed by the end of the review. Also, a tip, I find that the Visual Editor, which I primarily use, is much easier for removing links.

The Low Countries and the Rhineland

[edit]
  • Low Countries should probably be defined. You could also link it, as it is done in the lead.
  • "the Low Countries saw the destruction of monuments, iconoclasm, and art auctions much like that of Paris." By who? The French? The Low Countries themselves? A third party?
  • If this is Jac-Luc, then he should be linked.
  • Full name of and link Rubens.
    •  Done —WS
  • "In 1794, three paintings by Rubens, along with around 5,000 books from the University of Leuven, were sent from Antwerp to Paris,[16]: 440  and the first shipment arrived in September 1794." remove the second 1794
    •  Done —WS
  • Not a requirement, but maybe add something extremely short on the War of the First Coalition. Like, "which France won".
  • "18 Rembrandts" link to Rembrandts?
    • Reworded a bit before, but now  Done —WS
  • " of their artworks." perhaps change it to "the artworks" or make it clear those are Belgian artworks.
    •  Done —WS

Will stop here and pick up the day after tomorrow. Great article so far. FredModulars (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Will pick up when concerns have been addressed. FredModulars (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

[edit]

This part of the review will not include the subsections. After this is done I'll get to those and maybe knock out two to three of them at a time.

  • References and the image caption look good.
  • "In Italy, the special commissions used for art appropriation in the Netherlands and Belgium were expanded and worked more systematically." So, are the commissions in the Netherlands and Belgium the same ones being used in Italy, or are the ones in Italy modeled off of the ones in the Netherlands in Belgium with some expansion?
    • There was overlap among the commissioners themselves, but the commissions were different. And, of course, the museum staff at the receiving end of the appropriations was the same. Hope the rewording at the start of the section makes that more clear. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an optional addition, but Jacques-Pierre Tinet is not labeled as anything. Is there anything you can say? Something simple like how you describe the others as scientists and artists?
  • Paragraphs two and three seem to be talking about the same idea (support in Italy for the appropriations). They should be merged.
    • Rebroke paragraphs,  Done —WS
  • Should Jean-Baptiste Moitte be redlinked?

Sardegna and Turin & Austrian Lombardy

[edit]

Will deal with these two in an hour or so, hopefully. FredModulars (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sardegna and Turin: Might need some context for non-Italian/non-European readers who might be unfamiliar with Italian geography. I'll be honest, I'm not all too familiar with it myself. A WL might do the trick.
    • I added a map of ~1796 Italy at the top of the section, and I've renamed the sub-section to Kingdom of Sardinia, since I think it'll help explain why Turin & Sardinia are discussed together. —Wingedserif (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will circle back to this after a second look at the article or after I finish with Italy. A good map, but it is very out of place. Don't remove it now, though. Perhaps this article will benefit from a map highlighting all the countries/areas where art was taken from, though I'm not sure where it would go. If you agree with that, then consider making a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop if one doesn't already exist. Another possibility is a map of individual countries and cities/administrative divisions shaded. You know the material best, so if you think a specific map or something will be better then that should be requested.
  • Should Sardegna be changed to Sardinia (Italian -> English)?
    • Yes,  Done —WS
  • "As a result" why? Why does Turin's incorporation as a French territory directly affect what's happening in Sardinia?
  • Since this section talks about Turin first, it should be renamed to Turnin and Sardegna/Sardinia.
    • See section rename above —WS
  • Austrian Lombardy: "commissioner Tinet" capitalize commissioner unless it isn't an official position. Since he was on the commission, I'm assuming it is.
    • I'm reticent to do this, because I'm not sure whether the OG source is referring to "commissioner" as a specific title that Tinet had or just as a generic descriptor since he was part of the commission. I'm rewording to comply with MOS:PEOPLETITLES, and also to remove a pronoun ambiguity I just noticed. —Wingedserif (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geographic context is less of an issue than it is in the previous subsection, but a WL to Milan should work and maybe put "Milan, Lombardy".
    • Added region name later in sentence, but  Done —WS

Modena & Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla

[edit]
  • Modena: Giuseppe Maria Soli, is a redlink necessary?
  • So, I looked up the Dukes of Modena. Are they Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena? If so, is the date of him being Duke ending on 7 May correct? And if yes, then how could the Duke of Modena, a title which didn't exist after 7 May, sign a treaty with Napoleon on 17 May?
    • I looked back at the source cited in the second sentence of the paragraph, but it doesn't actually mention a date for the armistice signing. I've removed the specific day and just left the month; hope that's OK. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The first shipment was curated by Giuseppe Maria Soli, director of the Accademia Atestina di Belle Arti [it]. The paintings were seized from the apartment of the Duke D'Este and sent to Milan in 1796 with commissioners Tinet and Bethemly" is now unsourced.
  • Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla: "Dukes of Parma and Piacenza" if the Duke is this man, then why use "Dukes". With that, why only Parma and Piacenza and not Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla. "Duke of Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla" is used later in the paragraph, too.
    • This looks to be my mistake from taking from the Quynn source, where the two dukes of Modena and Parma/Piacenza/Guastalla are discussed together. I've made this singular and using the names for all the regions in the duchy. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the creation of the Taro department" maybe change it to "and the creation of the French Taro department". If you have the date it was established in the sources, include it. It is confusing for it to be right next to 1803 but created, at least according to its own article, in 1808.
    • The quote in that same paragraph is attributed to a Taro official by the cited source, which is probably why I thought it should be mentioned here. I agree the clause there is ambiguous. Hopefully the changes make it more clear. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingedserif: With the holidays coming up, I'll be less active in the following week (Dec. 25 - 31). Hopefully, I can try to knock out another subsection or two tomorrow (24) morning and keep up with your replies to my comments. Merry Christmas (if you do celebrate) and a Happy New Year in advance. FredModulars (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and for all your hard work on this nomination! I haven't responded in a bit as well because of the holidays but I'll be back and more present in January. A Happy New Year to you as well! —Wingedserif (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian Republic

[edit]

@Wingedserif: Pinging to advise you of new comments. FredModulars (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingedserif: Second ping. Normally I wouldn't do a second ping, but you have been an exceptional nominator and I appreciate your dedication to the article. About a week after this ping, if there are no responses from your end, I will have to decline the nomination. FredModulars (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of Italy

[edit]

I've previewed the rest of the section and it looks good. I'll try and knock it out tomorrow and/or Wednesday. Sorry for some delays throughout the review; I've just been incredibly busy this month.FredModulars (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rome and the Papal States
[edit]
  • Sourcing looks good.
  • Perugino was linked before in Background. Best to remove the link and spell out his name since it has been a while you mentioned him.
    •  Done —WS
  • Pope seems pretty important, but his name is only mentioned in the third paragraph and linked in the fourth. Even in the third, it isn't clear Pius VI is the Pope. Any reason?
    • Nope, I'll grant him the status of Pope! —WS
  • "armistice of Bologna null and void" capitalize armistice
    •  Done —WS
  • "Napoleonic officials began systematically sacking the city, after compiling an inventory of the Vatican's treasures." remove the comma
    •  Done —WS
  • "Officials opened the rooms of the Pope" it's your personal preference, but I'd say reword it to "the Pope's rooms"
    •  Done —WS
  • Are the full names of Duphot and Pommereul available? It's alright if they aren't. Also, clarify the former is a French general. The reader can infer it, but it should still be explicitly mentioned.
  • You'd know better, but I believe "Camillo, the Borghese prince" should be reworded to "Prince Camillo Borghese"
    • You're right! I was probably being overly faithful to the Italian word order.  Done —WS
  • Please refer to an unanswered comment in Background
Tuscany
[edit]
  • Sourcing looks good.
  • Clarify "The Annunciation of the Virgin" and other works he took were "primitive." You're saying that his choices of primitive and Gothic artists were looked down upon, but we are left to assume that his choices were as such.
    • Reworded to clarify. Also found a non-Italian source that explains the disapproval of Gothic Italian works in the 1700s. (FWIW, this trivia was one of the things that drew my attention to this article in the first place. One could argue that a lot of these pre-Renaissance Italian artists would never have been "discovered" if their works weren't taken.) —Wingedserif (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Florence at the beginning, not the end, of the section.
    •  Done —WS
Naples
[edit]
The catalog of Canova
[edit]

Good section; no comments


@Wingedserif: new comments above

Victory Celebrations of 1798

[edit]
  • Unless you can argue it does, I do not believe the information regarding the dates in the French Republican Calendar contributes anything to the article.
  • Is the print described in the first paragraph available as an image? If that print is the section's only image, then clarify (in the caption) that that is the print you are describing. If it was one of the commemorative prints described in the second paragraph, add something such as "One of the commemorative prints..." to the caption.
    • The print in the section is the one mentioned in the first sentence (the caption in the engraving dates it to those celebrations). After looking at MOS:SEEIMAGE, I'm wondering if so much description of the print outside the caption is necessary. Going to try to condense the in-article text into the caption as a solution. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingedserif:

Egypt and Syria

[edit]
  • Clarify that Egypt and Syria were under Ottoman rule during this period in the opening sentence.
  • Denon has been referred to enough throughout the article that it is appropriate for he to be referred to by his last name in the first sentence.
    •  Done —WS
  • Remove "the" from "the scientist"
    •  Done —WS
  • We're expecting a link to an article on scientific expeditions in general, but instead we are linked to the subsection in French campaign in Egypt and Syria. WP:EASTEREGG. Maybe change it to [[Their scientific expedition]], or change it to whatever you believe fits.
    •  Done (w/ your recommended fix) —WS
  • Remove "even" from "not even considered"
    •  Done —WS

Wingedserif: I am advising you that I was in the hospital today, so I will be continuing the review tomorrow. Thank you for your patience, and sorry for the delay. FredModulars (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Europe

[edit]
  • I haven't seen the Holy Roman Empire abbreviated to HRE before. Even if it is recognizable, a quick Ctrl + F shows the abbreviation is only used twice after. I believe it's best to remove the abbreviation entirely and just repeat Holy Roman Empire.
    •  Done —WS
      • I'm sorry. It is a recognizable abbreviation. I still feel that the abbreviation is unnecessary since it is not used too much, but change it if you'd like.
  • "French Republic" Why not just "France"?
    • No reason!  Done —WS
  • Change the preposition: "...Europe to Paris" "Europe into Paris"
    •  Done —WS
  • Is there a link to Neveu, on this Wikipedia or another language? Also, is there a full name to Neveu?
  • "Vivant Denon" to "Denon"
    •  Done —WS
  • "400 objects came from Vienna alone." We're told over a thousand paintings were seized, but is there a figure on "objects" as well?
    • The cited source actually says "art objects", which seems ambiguous between paintings and decorative art like sculptures. I'm going to change that term to follow the source. I don't think there's a source that adds up the number of objects across countries, etc. One of the reasons I split the list of art off from this article is because of how hard it is to trust that reports are exhaustive... —Wingedserif (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spain

[edit]
  • Comma after "and Diego Velázquez"
    •  Done —WS

Restitutions

[edit]
  • No reference for "The Papal government did not ask for everything, especially paintings held by French provincial museums." in the third to last paragraph
  • I think the First Restoration should be briefly explained. Though it might be self-explanatory (to some degree), I still feel it should be clarified.
    • Added a short parenthetical explanation. —WS
  • Instead of May 8 of 1814, why not 8 May 1814 (or May 8, 1814; see comment #10)
    •  Done, 8 May 1814 —WS
  • Do the sources explain why the King gave back the artwork? It seems a bit arbitrary even if it was just the ones not yet hung
    • The cited source by Quynn doesn't really explain Louis XVIII's decision. My guess is it had something to do with the fact that he was installed into power by the allies, but probably still wanted to limit art losses. I don't have a source for that, though! —Wingedserif (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Louis XVIII is linked in the second instead of the first paragraph. Also add his title king of France
    •  Done —WS
  • Add dates (years) for the beginnings of the First and Second Restorations
    •  Done —WS
  • Link to the Congress of Vienna
    •  Done —WS
  • Please explain all these random dudes who just appeared out of nowhere (von Ribbentropp, Jacobi, and Eberhardt de Groote)
  • Remove "then-king"
    •  Done —WS
  • July 8 and 13 July? Please change all dates to one uniform DMY or MDY
    •  Done —WS
  • How did the Low Countries take back their works "by force"?
    • Basically, many countries were assisted by Prussian soldiers in removing the works from the museum. In the Wescher article, he says "The Belgian historian Van den Branden has left an amusing account of how the Batavian [ie, the Low Countries] delegates eventually lost patience, and under the protection of Prussian bayonets, took their many large Rubens paintings by force from the walls of the Louvre". —Wingedserif (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Hermitage Museum
    •  Done —WS
  • Vivant Denon --> Denon
    •  Done —WS
  • Ferdinand VII was already linked
    •  Done —WS
  • I would recommend you remove what you added in Venetian Republic about the Horses & Lion of Saint Mark to supplement what is already here in Restitutions
    • Good point,  Done —WS
  • Who is Lavallée?
  • By peninsula, are you referring to Europe?
    • Yes!  Done —WS
  • Is there more data on who received what? All we have now are paintings sent back to Spain and Austria and bronzes back to Berlin.
    • The Wescher book has a nonexaustive index that lists what works by particular artists were returned where. I'm reticent to give data because how confused things were, it's not easy to come up with precise numbers. —Wingedserif (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is, for a lack of better words, big. Consider splitting it up into subsections. I don't think the size is too bad, but I would be lying if I didn't say it would be preferable to split up

Legacy

[edit]
  • "From its opening, artists and scholars had flocked to the museum..." Add the opening year
    •  Done —WS

Sorry for my late response. I'll take a second look at the article tomorrow and jot down anything outstanding here. FredModulars (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second look

[edit]

I'll be using the GA criteria template for the second look for simplicity.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    good
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    sources are reliable
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Article is focused and covers major aspects
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Pass

Congratulations! You should be proud of your work and dedication to this article. The article is sourced properly, well-written, and covers the topic well. With that, I promote the article to GA-class. I applaud your efforts toward improving the page and your knowledge of the art Napoleon decided to steal. I hope to see this article again in a review for a higher assessment if you wish to pursue it. FredModulars (talk)

Status query

[edit]

FredModulars, Wingedserif, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any activity here or in the article for about four weeks, and neither of you have been doing much editing so far this year. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I have not been doing much editing this year as I put on my User page here, though I forgot to put it back up when I removed it. I have backed off from editing on a large scale and will only respond to reviews I am involved in, such as this one, when there is a response. I have been routinely checking this page and others and awaiting Wingedserif's responses to my comments above before I go on with the review. FredModulars (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I'm happy to say I'm back to editing. I've just made changes and responses above. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Napoleonic_looting_of_art/GA1&oldid=1076754239"