Talk:The Icebergs

Smithsonian and Metropolitan Museum of Art

commons:File:The_Icebergs_(Frederic_Edwin_Church).jpg says the artwork was displayed at the Smithsonian and Metropolitan Museum of Art. Should this be mentioned in the article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Outriggr: Pinging, just in case. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Another Believer:. No, we have never recorded temporary locations of artworks in articles about them--unless there was something significant about the location that is covered by a secondary source. I would even remove that from the commons description as I don't believe it's relevant there. Now I will go to my talk page to answer your other question...! Outriggr (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Icebergs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 22:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Lead it was exhibited by itself — In 1861? It's a little unclear. Hard to fit into one sentence... tried a different style. Added to this slightly. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC) The lead currently contains no basic description of the painting. What does it depict? Good point. The Icebergs was auctioned for the most of any American painting to date — I would add the amount in the lead. Also, "to date" could also mean as of 2018. changed to "that point". measuring 1.64 by 2.85 metres (5.4 ft × 9.4 ft) — This should also be in the description section. Also, the infobox uses cm/in instead of m/ft. Made the units consistent, and added to the body of the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Background

Background The search for the mission of John Franklin — Can you give a brief summary that doesn't require following the link? Who was Franklin (explorer?)/what was his mission (exploring?)/how did he disappear/what happened to him? This is primary resolved—added a piped link, the fate of Franklin and his crew, which hints at what happened to Franklin even if it is not overtly stated. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Hayes named an Arctic peak at the Kennedy Channel after Church in 1861. — Before or after The Icebergs? Needs review and explanation of Hayes. Resolved. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC) As David C. Huntington wrote — Who's Huntington? Done. proceeds would be donated to the Patriotic Fund — Patriotic Fund redirects to Lloyd's Patriotic Fund. Same thing? Worth a link if so. (Nope, that one is British.) newspapers regularly apprised readers of the subject matter and progress of this, his next painting. — While he was painting? If so, this sentence belongs earlier. Resolved. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC) As Church scholar David C. Huntington wrote, "By going north in 1859 Church — This introduces the implications of Church's 1859 voyage before the 1859 voyage itself. Consider adding a brief note before this saying that Church himself went on an Arctic expedition. Added information, which is supported by the existing cite, to the preceding sentence. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC) By 1860, Church was at the height of his fame, and newspapers regularly updated the public on the progress of the painting. — When did he return from the Arctic? When did he start painting The Icebergs? This paragraph jumps from "Church in the Arctic" to "Church back home painting The Icebergs." Resolved. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Description

Description Church produced a number of advanced studies — This sentence seems a bit out of place, coming as it does after describing the exhibition for the final product, and without further information about the studies. Perhaps add a paragraph about the studies somewhere (end of "background"?), in which you could also include some of the information you have in the caption for the image in "background." Hmmm.... Gerald L. Carr writes — Who's he? Done. "material play between surface and depth" — Whose words? Mitchell writes that — Who? And first name should also be used, a) for consistency and b) because it's the first time you introduce him. Done. The details of the scene reward close inspection. — A bit flowery. Right; intended to replace. a patch of emerald beneath — Same. But disagree here; just a color and an area.

Reception

• Thus the promotional methods that Church had adopted for his earlier "Great Pictures" were less successful with The Icebergs. — This feels a bit odd for a concluding sentence. It also seems to run counter to what was said earlier in the section, i.e., that the Civil War—something completely out of Church's control—got in the way.

Exhibition and purchase in London

• Church renamed it The Icebergs — Is the reason why known?
• The canvas was well-received in London. — Any excerpts from contemporary reviews?
• The Icebergs was purchased by Edward Watkin — Is the price known?
  • Answered (not known) and added probable asking price. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

As artistic influence

As artistic influence a three-painting Church exhibition. — What were the other two? Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC) then called To Illumine the Iceberg — And now called...? Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Church portrayed an iceberg once again at his home in Olana. — Is this the one at the Carnegie Museum of Art? Would be nice to clarify. The new section looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Loss, rediscovery, and auction

Loss, rediscovery, and auction "more or less sank from sight for three quarters of a century" — Whose words? Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC) the Art Institute's first offer — Is the offer known? Not in source. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC) The Manchester City Council by this time intervened — What was their right to do so, i.e., who was understood to have title to the painting at the time? The Council identified as city property per source. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC) which had been $980,000 for George Caleb Bingham's The Jolly Flatboatmen — Sold in what year? Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Bulch or Baulch? Both are used. Fixed to Baulch. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Mair Bulch did not receive any of the sale proceeds to improve her facility, per her original intent. — "per her original intent" sounds more like her original intent was to not improve her facility with the funds. Also, why did she not receive any of the proceeds? Who did? This gets back to the title question above. Per Harvey & Church 2002, "Not surprisingly, most of the money went to the city of Manchester. The city council eventually purchased the dilapidated country property Mair Baulch had wanted when she first considered selling The Icebergs", and "Within a few years, the Baulches retired, and during a nationwide reorganization of Social Services, Rose Hill was closed as a remand center, and the house and grounds were sold for development. However, Rose Hill is on the English Heritage register, and the developer has promised to restore the ancestral home as a set of executive flats. That work remains to be done." This would seem to contradict what is in the article, although the "eventually" perhaps suggests some reluctance. KJP1, having indicated your interest in Rose Hill, might you have an idea? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Usernameunique - It had certainly been converted into apartments when I went in about 2010. This source indicates that occurred in 2006, [1]. However as a blog, it's not a great source. I'll see if I can find something better. KJP1 (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Thanks, KJP1. I've added Harvey's information as well, so the 1980 article and her 2002 information are both represented. The "eventually" may indeed mean that the purchase was after 1980. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

References
References How about using sfn footnotes? Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC) #7: Only pincite that ends with a period. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC) #24: Only the page numbers are given. Found on Google Books and fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Outriggr, initial comments are above. What I've read so far (about half) looks good. I'll continue this in the next day or two. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I apologize, but ever since I listed this for GAN, I meant to remove it from GAN shortly after, but forgot. (Some of these concerns are things I meant to address first, thus why I wanted to delay the listing--such as who Hayes is and thus how/when he named a peak for Church.) I am not interested in this process, though I will address the comments you've left. Thanks for that! Outriggr (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Outriggr, any reason you don't want to finish the process? The article is in good shape overall; the two things you mention as in want of expansion ("who Hayes is and thus how/when he named a peak for Church") are interesting and deserving of mention, but ultimately tangential to the article. The first should be most fully covered in the Isaac Israel Hayes article, and the second in the Frederic Edwin Church article. (Information about the studies is the greatest thing, so far, I think the article is missing.) But for want of a little attention, there is no reason this article should not do well on review. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Part of the problem is that I put it at GAN without reviewing it as a whole, thinking I would do so "sometime" before a reviewer showed up. Didn't happen! I've been debating this, and though I could go either way, I think I would prefer to get back to some of it on my own time. Again, I'm sorry for mis-using your time, though the comments are certainly still useful and will be used. Outriggr (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• As a follow-up, can you keep this open for a few days. I'll be away, and if it's close I can imagine responding to comments after that. Regards, Outriggr (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Outriggr, I'll give comments for the entire article in either case (might need a couple days myself to finish up), and then leave you a reasonable time to respond. No worries if you're away or need some time. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Usernameunique, I'll take any prepared or other comments you have, but I would like to close this. Fail away. Outriggr (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Outriggr, I'll finish up on Saturday; working against a deadline right now. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Outriggr, it looks good, and is in better shape than I think you give it credit for. All my comments are now above. I think the article could stand a short standalone section on other versions, discussing both the preceding studies and the following related works (currently discussed in "As artistic influence"). It would be nice to know what other versions exist, and their sales history (if any). It's ultimately a tangential issue, however; if you address what's above, that should be sufficient to pass here. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Having started the Rose Hill article, I've an interest in this and I'd certainly agree with Usernameunique. You've a very decent article here which, with just a bit of work, could easily make GA. Your call, obviously, but I think it would be a shame for it to languish. KJP1 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Outriggr, I've found many of the sources online, and so dealt with myself most of the issues identified above. Those sections where all is resolved have been collapsed, with the few outstanding issues left obvious. I see you're both semi-retired and self-blocked, but were active yesterday; any interest in finishing up the final issues? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Outriggr, I've passed the article. Most of the outstanding issues I've been able to address myself, helped by the fact that many of the sources are available online. Those that have not been addressed are not worth holding up the review over, but are listed above should you decide to revisit at some point. The breadth in which some of these sources treat The Icebergs make clear that there are places in which the article could be expanded, should you wish to do so at some point—e.g., in order to bring it up to featured status—but the fact remains that as it stands, it is a good article. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)