Talk:The Lady in White (Bracquemond)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 20:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 01:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this :) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave: Thank you for the great review. I plan to address everything in ten hours from now. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and content

~~A previous painting,~~ Woman in the Garden (1877): If you want to emphasise that this work is a painting, you can refer to as "The 1877 painting..."
Like ~~the~~ other Impressionists ~~of the time~~
at the time, and began WP:CINS
little medieval scenes does little refer to the scale of the work (i.e. intimate) or the size of the canvas?
Formalism (art) would be a good link
would remain → remained WP:WOULDCHUCK
The lasting influence of Ingres would later spread to her personal life. this appears unnecessarily mysterious. It might be referring to her husband studying under a student of Ingres? Either way, it can be cut or moved to relevant text.
Marie met her husband Félix Bracquemond, later marrying him in 1869 I don't love the repetition of concepts of husband / marrying.
the two ~~of them both~~ both can be retained, substituting for "the two"
respect, and admiration what are you trying to communicate by drawing a distinction between these?
In First Impressionist Exhibition First is capitalised, but fifth isn't. Is there a reason for this?
Strange for the exhibition of the work to be put in the background to the work.
10 rue des Pyramides what is the significance of this location? Can it be disclosed in the text?
Are these all the artists who presented at the exhibition, or a selection? It is probably too far off-topic (re; GACR 3b to list all the artists who exhibited at the first exhibition the work was probably exhibited at.
Is there a reason you refer frequently to women artists rather than female artists? Men artists seems inappropriate as a comparison.
As an organizational matter, the second paragraph of the description, serving as background, should be placed before the preceding sentence it is providing background to. It also would work better in the background section rather than the description section.
Most women artists at the time were forced by convention to work in the studio, and were discouraged from working outside the studio by themselves this reads as tautology
artistic repertoire, focus, and range of subjects It's a bit unclear to me how listing these all individually adds much, there seems to be a lot of crossover.
indicating as art historian Tamar Garb describes it this attribution reads awkwardly. Is it necessary? If it needs to be attributed that it's transitional, "indicating to art historian..." might work better.
in ~~another work, this time in~~ the
Is there a reason you refer to the Luxembourg Palace as the Palais du Luxembourg? If it is important (or your preference), then a link would be helpful.

Suggestions

This may move too far into preferences, but moving the reference from the lead to the caption would be preferable for WP:V from my read
in proximity of → close to
showing up → visible (less informal)
I think Bracquemond has strong enough links to France that dmy would be preferable for April 1–30, 1880, especially given you use centimetres to refer to the size of the artwork as a priority to inches.
observed the influence of landscapes like MOS:SAID
Would be good to elaborate the caption for Interior for a Salon, as the relation to the work is made apparent in the other two items listed.

Sources

Link the Internet Archive's copy of Moffett

Spot check

[1a] Y
[1b] Y More information that should be included in the description section, as discussed under [12].
[7a] clock I think this is on a different page, although I am unsure where. Can you point this out?
[7b] Y
[7c] N A plain reading of the text misses the nuance of the "debut" comment, that it was a debut with oils.
[12] Y More can be drawn from the source for the description section around notable elements of the composition (e.g. orientation of body and head)
[14] N I think there is an important distinction between gave vs willed. I also think it's drawing too much from the source to definitively say it was restored in the 1980s.
[15] Y

Other

Images appropriately captioned / attributed Y
Stable Y
Neutral Y
Broad / summary style clock pending addressing of comments
No OR / COPYVIO Y (2.9% earwig)

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]