Talk:The Sirens and Ulysses/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 21:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to undertake this review. I was drawn to this article by the DYK and quite enjoyed reading it. I will begin shortly. Prhartcom (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is an interesting story of a beautiful painting; very well-told in an article that appears to be well-sourced and without any obvious technical problems.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Lede
Starting off with a minor note, just an FYI: The template {{nbsp}} exists and I have begun using it instead of   purely for readability of the wikitext, in case you are interested.
I dislike using any more templates than necessary—it's a bad habit to get into. This is only a short article, but on a long one like Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway it's surprisingly easy to hit the transclusion limit. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know; thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word "eventually" may be misleading and may need to be dropped or changed; further down I clarify.
Replied below—this is just an effort to avoid repetition, and I have no particular attachment to it. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background
You could link to York. (We don't have to avoid doing so, like avoiding linking to London.) You properly link to Manchester. Apparently a script thinks this article needs more links.
I agree, and have also linked London, much as it will annoy the delinking brigade. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Humourously enough, the script now believes the article has enough links. Prhartcom (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually not a capitalised "B" in biblical, but it is not entirely unheard of. Nor is it a capitalised "M" in member (I notice the source does not capitalise it).
In terms of the Royal Academy, "Member" is always capitalised in this context. A "member" is someone who pays an annual subscription for free admission to their exhibitions; a "Member" is a Royal Academician who has the right to exhibit and sell six works in the Summer Exhibition. I'm neutral on the capitalisation of "biblical". – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. That's also OR. It is not that way in the source and it is not that way in the article about the Academy. Sounds like you need yourself a reliable source here. Cite one of those in the article and of course I'm good with it, otherwise of course I'm not and I'm expecting you lower-case the "M". Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the gordian knot by changing it to Royal Academician, which is probably clear in any case. – iridescent 12:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be for some reviewers as this term isn't anywhere in the cited source, and like most people I've never heard it before, but I am quite satisfied because the Wikipedia article List of Royal Academicians provides the source www.racollection.org.uk which presents a list that includes Etty. New Requests: Etty does not appear in this separate Wikipedia list article; would you please do some quick housekeeping and add him to it? Would you also add this RA source to the External Links section of ~~this article or~~ his own article? (FYI this link takes us right to him.) Update: Of course, you have provided the RS for this term into this article; I almost hadn't noticed, sorry, therefore this request is truly just doing a little extra and is not required for this GA. Thanks. (I believe it is upper-case "G" in Gordian. Ha.) Prhartcom (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Etty to the list. I've no idea what criteria the author of the list has used for inclusion, but I think Etty ought to be on it; one of the more notable things about Etty's life in hindsight is that John Constable was bumped to make way for him in 1828, and now Etty is virtually forgotten and Constable regularly appears on World's Favourite Artists lists. – iridescent 12:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Later, I was reading Magnificat and came across the word "biblical" there and remembered we should fix this; done. Prhartcom (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:efn-ua, all right if you must; I simply use {{efn}}.
I loathe the {{efn}} template, and would happily TFD it—his insistence on changing articles to {{efn}} format is one of the reasons Jack Marridew is banned from Wikipedia. Extended text footnotes need to be differentiated from inline references, and the difference between numbers and lower-case letters is not at all obvious to casual readers. Even the {{efn-ua}} template isn't obtrusive enough, in my opinion; I'd much rather go back to the old days of "note 1", "note 2". – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I didn't know that was the reason. I remember I used to use "nb 1", "nb 2", etc.; maybe I should go back to it or use this uppercase template. I don't loath very much on Wikipedia. Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spend any length of time on Arbcom and you'll start seeing loathsomeness where you never noticed it before—there's almost no part of Wikipedia that someone, somewhere, isn't using disruptively. The problem with the {{efn}} template is, Jack was so pleased with it he insisted on spreading it everywhere, without consideration for the fact people may have formatted things a different way for a reason. See also infoboxes, alt-text and list-defined references. – iridescent 12:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me: This article needs an infobox. Just kidding. Prhartcom (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first word of the footnote is "Robinson" and a year, but this is still prose (not an inline citation), please provide a few words of introduction to him so that he doesn't just appear out of nowhere and make us believe we are supposed to know who he is, e.g. "Art historian Leonard Robinson ..." The year is not even necessary (again, this is not an inline citation); the footnote number leads us to that if we need it. A new author appears without introduction further down and a year appears next to authors again a few more times (by that time, the authors are introduced to us); same note applies.
Disagree; the inline reference makes it clear who Robinson is. This is an absolutely standard way to express the opinion of a given author on Wikipedia—see Biddenden Maids, Pig-faced women, London Necropolis Company or Tarrare for examples of this style at FA-level. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of which are your nominations, naturally. That's fine; I withdraw my request. Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This new class of buyer were" → "This new class of buyer was"
I disagree. British English usage is to treat collective nouns as plural unless the subject is being treated as a single entity rather than a group of individuals, and this is talking about a number of individual art collectors, rather than a collective decision. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah; like, "the upper class were snobs" or similar sentence; a countable noun. Did I get that right? Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the rules actually exist anywhere, but what I was always told was that if the group is acting collectively it's singular, but if it's a collection of people acting individually it's plural. There's a fairly good set of examples from the BBC here. – iridescent 12:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that in-a-nutshell description and for that webpage; I'm adding that to my collection of grammar references. Prhartcom (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eric Corbett will be able to tell you whatever Wikipedia's rules on the topic are, if you need them. If you've ever spent any time with a band or a sports team on your watchlist, you'll be aware that nobody (including myself) is ever 100% sure of the singulsr/plural rules, especially since they're dialect specific so change from country to country. WP:PLURALS has a reasonable summary of the matter. – iridescent 12:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"as he wrote at the time"; I think a comma would appear after "time" and before the quote mark.
Neutral either way. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have made this change. Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"great moral on the heart…" → "great moral on the heart{{nbsp}}... " Be careful when copying and pasting from online text that includes special characters (in this case the single-character ellipsis) and ensure they are properly changed. I have already changed the curly apostrophe to the standard apostrophe when the title of the source "Etty's masterpiece" was copied and pasted.
I always use the ellipsis character. I'm aware a recommendation against (not a prohibition) was unilaterally added to the MOS back in 2007 but I find the reasoning completely spurious—I doubt one reader in a million reads Wikipedia in a fixed-width font, and three full stops clutters the edit box unnecessarily and has the potential to confuse bots—Wikipedia bots are all trained not to treat multiple full stops as repeat punctuation, but the same isn't necessarily true of our mirrors. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not always. Elsewhere in the article you correctly apply the non-breaking space followed by the three dots "..."; we have an inconsistency. I have made this change for you. Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etty's quotation is in italics? I don't think that's right; see Wikipedia:Quotations. The poem looks okay italicised but apparently that's wrong too; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry, "Style for quoting from poems", which also says to use the <blockquote> and <poem>; therefore it would be set apart and indented (as the source did). Try it and compare it to using {{quote}} as you do further down, which you may prefer here.
I'm neutral, change it as you see fit; my opinion of the MOS and the clique who WP:OWN it is notoriously low. This is irrelevant in the context of GAN—Manual of Style compliance isn't a criteria at FAC, let alone GAN (except in a few limited cases). – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to change it as I see fit. Remove the italics from the quotation. For examples of correct usage of quotation without italics see any of the four FA articles mentioned above. You may leave the poem as is, if you'd like. Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done for the Etty quote. I'm reluctant to break the poem out as a block quote, as I think it will give it undue weight. – iridescent 12:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right; it would. Prhartcom (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and reception
Wait. The prose says the Sirens are in "traditional dramatic poses" then says that they are "slightly unusual poses" then says that "models were always in traditional poses". I think the point is getting muddied quite a bit. My OR tells me these are not traditional poses, but I wonder what the source actually says.
Traditional dramatic poses are very unusual in pre-1848 English painting, unless the painting is of a theatrical performance; this was the period when the absolutely dominant painting style was Reynolds's Raphael-inspired idealisation of form. The exact quote from the source is '…but as usual they are studio poses […] and also as usual Etty presents them holding out their arms in conventional "artistic" attitudes. It is very likely that Etty's work was always affected, and adversely, by his regular attendance at the Academy Life Classes where models were "set" in a traditional manner. [At the Academy] if the human figure was presented it had to be heroic, classical and "artistic"'. Change "dramatic" to "artistic" if you deem it necessary. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My note was to point out an inconsistency between the word "traditional" and the word "unusual"; I think these two words are at odds with each other; opposites, nearly. In your explanation, it appears you are equating the word "unusual" with the word "dramatic"; apologies if I misread you. Thanks for providing the source; it does not mention "slightly unusual"—the phrase that I believe is causing a problem. Yes, could you please change "slightly unusual"? Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to "classical poses". I'm reluctant to use "heroic", even though that's what's in the source, as although that's technically correct to most readers "heroic" is going to look strange in the context of luring sailors to their deaths. – iridescent 12:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. This is good; this small fix makes a big improvement in clarity. Prhartcom (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know who Richard Green is (he's not even one of the three editors if we were to check so we are really confused) and we don't need his year, both per note above.
Same reply as above—this is a standard format. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you that it is standard format, but we don't know who Richard Green is; he's not one of the three editors. Who is he? Nothing on this page tells us. Please add something that does. Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'm with you now—have added "former curator of York Art Gallery" for Green and "Etty's biographer" for Robinson. (In this context "former curator of York Art Gallery" is a bigger deal than it sounds, as YAG holds Etty's archives.) – iridescent 12:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea; I can't tell you how confusing it was before. As good as this article is, that had been a serious omission and quite out of character for you; thankfully it has now been corrected. And you pleasantly surprise me by doing what I ask and adding a couple of words of introduction to Robinson after fighting me over it and after I had given up. Prhartcom (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"adopted by most artists ... the rest of the 19th century" If that's right I think this needs an inline citation.
User:Johnbod just added that—you'd need to ask him where he got it. While Etty was the first to do it, I'm not sure it would be possible to cite the "most"—I can cite that Leighton did it, Draper did it, Waterhouse did it etc but it's perfectly possibly nobody has ever counted. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well in fact Waterhouse's first painting on the subject of 1891 is about the last magnificent ride of the harpy depiction, but a later work goes human-mermaid. I don't have a reference, but experience of looking at works and the Wikimedia Commons category gives a clear picture. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no argument from me—I'm just saying that it may not be possible to cite the "most", since it may well be a sky-is-blue situation where nobody has bothered to explicitly say it. – iridescent 22:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, will someone please add an inline source or remove the last half of this sentence please? Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a stopgap, have reworded to "an approach followed by a number of later painters of the subject", which is indisputable, and cited accordingly. – iridescent 12:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, and this new wording is such an improvement. Prhartcom (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could link to Brighton; same note as above.
Yes, agree. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"divided opinion;" The semicolon here could be changed to a full stop; it isn't wrong the current way, certainly not, but the sentence does go on for a bit; a dramatic pause here is one way to shorten it if you'd like. (I love this sentence showcasing the two different opinions; both have a valid point; this is perhaps my favourite part of the article.)
I marginally prefer it as one long sentence, but have no strong opinion either way. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All right, that is perfectly fine with me too. Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When was the Summer Exhibition? Especially, when was it in comparison to the exhibition at the Royal Academy in 1837? The text says Daniel Grant "eventually" (in the lede) purchased it in October 1837, but this is the same year as the Royal Academy exhibition. The timeline is not clear. At first, I was thinking a decade or something had passed before it eventually sold. To help with timelines, I open sentences "Six months later" or something to that effect to help tell the story to the reader. (Hopefully your sources provide you what you need to do this.)
It was the 1837 Summer Exhibition, I've added the year to make that clear. The "eventually" in the lead is more to avoid repetition than anything else. Because the SE always runs for at least a couple of months, I'm a bit reluctant to have a "four months later" which makes it sound like a single shot at selling it. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Thanks for fixing that. I believe the "eventually" caused some harm; it led me to think it was going to be quite some time before it sold, when it turned out to have sold later that year. Would you be all right with dropping it? Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to "later that year" – iridescent 12:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarity achieved. Prhartcom (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Grant suddenly said" → "Grant suddenly said," (note comma)
I'm neutral about commas—whatever one does someone else will change them to something else, so as long as their presence/absence doesn't affect the meaning I never worry. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, and it's a good attitude to have about them. I went ahead and added it since I believe it is correct before a quote mark in this case. Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in his surprise"; not sure what this means. Who is surprised? I assume the source actually says one of them was.
Etty's surprise—I was trying to avoid any more repetition of names than necessary in that paragraph (it already has six "Etty"s and five "Grant"s. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but I had guessed Grant's surprise, so we have a clarity problem. Will you change it to simply "to which Etty agreed." Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "startling Etty who in his surprise agreed". I think the surprise element is worth mentioning—Grant basically tricked Etty out of £50 (about £5000 in modern terms) by intentionally making an offer at a time Etty wasn't expecting it. It's outside the scope of this article, but "take it or leave it" at unexpected times seems to have been a trick Etty fell for on multiple occasions. – iridescent 12:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why wouldn't he; it's not like anyone else was going to buy it that year. This works well. Prhartcom (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking to ensure the mention of the Royal Society of Arts here is not the same as the Royal Academy of Arts that we had been reading about.
Definitely not; the RA and RSA were and are two completely unrelated bodies. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Etty died in 1849" → "Etty died later that year"; again, just to help us with the timeline; we already said the year.
Yes, agree. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful Etty quote. Would you like it to appear in a {{quote box}}? Up to you. I have used it to good effect.
I'm not a fan of boxed quotes, except when they're being used as surrogate images at the side to break up large blocks of text for which no image is available, as on Charles Domery. I think that in the body text, it tends to give undue emphasis to the quotation. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've used them only on those occasions. This article has plenty of images, no need. Note: You are so lucky that you work with articles with imagery that is in the public domain. Prhartcom (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it… Although, you'd be surprised how many 19th-century images are still under copyright. Plus, these WMF's position that it's legal to copy the high-resolution scans of paintings from gallery websites is legally dubious (in many countries, including crucially the UK, work that goes into a high-resolution scan of a fragile painting is itself considered a work of craftsmanship, and thus the copyright on the scan is separate to the copyright on the painting). – iridescent 12:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal and restoration
Where in the online source does it say "strong paint stabiliser", "the old canvas was replaced", "mixture of adhesive and chalk", "Gallery Nine", etc.? Is this source really only two sentences? I'm guessing you have the paper newspaper in front of you. Perhaps the "quote=" parameter could be used, then.
It actually says "Too strong gluten or size (paint stabiliser)". Since "gluten or size" would confuse the hell out of 99% of readers, I shortened it to "paint stabiliser". I deliberately used the Manchester Evening News article as a source as much as possible, as it's available online so it's easier for readers to check for themselves, but could source any of it (except possibly "gallery nine") from multiple paper sources. None of the restoration section is controversial—it was a showpiece project for the Manchester Art Gallery and heavily publicised. – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out the problem (you will laugh): I must first answer the advertiser's question, "If you own a 2013 or newer car, SUV, or truck, please select the make you purchased!" and then I get more than two sentences of the article. There we are, now I can see the source of your prose. You may ignore my note. Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@Iridescent: Well done on the article! (Sorry to hear you don't much like Etty.) Ready for issues to be addressed and for your comments. Prhartcom (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for putting so much effort into this. Don't take that "I dislike Etty and everything he stood for" too literally. I do think he represented one of the last gasps of a tradition that deservedly died, but he was one of the few English painters who sounds like a likeable person. Compared to Rossetti, Whistler or pretty much any of the other more technically proficient painters who followed him, Etty seems a far better character, who recognised what his limitations were and knew how to work within them. (His single-handed campaign to stop the demolition of medieval York has probably been the single biggest boost to the city's economy other than the railways, too.) – iridescent 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, Iridescent, happy to help. I appreciate that clarification; it is actually fascinating for me to hear someone speak about a topic they truly are an expert at. As for me, I represent the common man who bumbles along to read this article; perhaps that too is a valuable view to hear from. I see that we know one or two of the same people who volunteer here at Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing the last of these notes answered and then we can wrap up. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome—I've done enough reviews (I've no idea why the bot is only saying 3) to know how thankless it can be picking holes in someone else's work. It is appreciated! – iridescent 12:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]