Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of paintings by Thomas Cole/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of paintings by Thomas Cole

[edit]

List of paintings by Thomas Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 19:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cole was the first American landscape painter and the founder of the Hudson River School, a romantic art movement. ~ HAL333 19:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose Support

[edit]


Major issues

  • Every painting should have a column for if they're on canvas or panel (and if they're oil, tempera, water color etc.)
 Done
  • With the above being said the entire notes section seems to only fill up space and not give anything valuable. The panel and canvas stuff could be in a new column per the comment above, the "also known as" could be in a note after the titles or under the titles themselves (perhaps with "small" parameters) and the "Recently sold, replaced by museum-quality replica" should be in a note or under the info in the collection column
 Done
  • The country/state/city should really be listed after the museums – I'm not sure which would be most appropriate, perhaps state for the US and then city for other countries?
 Done
  • I'm really confused by separating the height and width columns, I don't think any other lists of works on Wikipedia seperate them, and they are never seperated in the art world. Ideally they should be put together and would be better sortable by square centimeters.
  • Would like to see a color for the sketches/studies to separate them from the actual paintings. I would recommend a neutral color like #FED or #FFFFDD that doesn't draw too much extra attention to them. This being said, moving them to a different section entirely might be worthwhile as well.
 Done

Minor issues

  • Image column shouldn't be sortable
 Done
  • I'm fairly confident that the words "Sketch" and "study" if directly relating to a painting he made later should not be italicized. (e. g. Study for The Angel Appearing to the Shepherds)
 Done
  • Would put all of the "c." in a template: 
    {{circa|year}} or {{circa|year–year}}
 Done
  • The "excluding frame" notes are unnecessary – paintings are almost never measured with their frames included
 Done
I really had no idea how to format it - I couldn't find any other lists like it. These two lists are very helpful. I've addressed some of your comments. However, I have a pretty big examination coming up, so I'm taking a bit of a wikibreak. I'll be able to address the rest if your comments beginning on Sunday. Thanks! ~ HAL333 22:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you for being unable to find good examples of paintings lists. Besides the two I mentioned most of them only exist for the sake of existing and have little references and no lead. List of paintings by Johannes Vermeer is alright as well. The same issue seems to arise with lists of compositions for composers, besides decent ones for Bach and Beethoven, most are a lazy bullet list or weirdly proportionate table. Anyways take your time with the changes, it's looking better already Aza24 (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've also noticed that I'm missing a few of his works, so I'll be making a deep dive into his works. I was really busy over the past week and a half, and consequently, this is somewhat sloppy work on my part. ~ HAL333 22:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the lead
  • Wikilink (and capitalise) Industrial Revolution
  • Self-taught needs a hyphen
  • "One of Cole's first landscapes Lake with Dead Trees (1825)" - need a comma after landscapes
  • "the "the truly American forest"" - the the?
  • "painted the The Course of Empire" - and again :-)
  • "personal opposition to Andrew Jackson" => "personal opposition to US President Andrew Jackson" (for the benefit of those, including me, who didn't know who he was)
  • "Later in life, Thomas transitioned" => "Later in life, Cole transitioned"
  • Think that's it on the lead. I will look at the table later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
🤦 Done ~ HAL333 18:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank

  • I'm a sucker for beautiful lists. For this review, I'm not commenting on anything that's already been covered above.
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing.
  • "Final works": Completed works?
 Done
  • I haven't checked out the images yet.
  • There's an argument that "Oil on canvas 64.1 x 89.2 cm" doesn't sort as expected because it comes after all the numerical entries (such as "64.2 x 89.7 cm"), but I can also see the argument that this might be the sorting you want. I fixed an apparent inconsistency with "Rhode Island School of Design Museum of Art". Otherwise, I see no problems with the table links and coding.
  • FLC criteria:
    • 1. I'm going to pass on my usual copyediting. Lots of the paintings aren't set in New York State, so it's hard to justify "Nearly all of his works depict the wilderness, "the truly American forest", typically the Hudson River Valley and Catskills".
 Done I clarified that. ~ HAL333 23:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
    • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
    • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
    • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
    • 4. It is navigable.
    • 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
    • 6. It is stable.
  • I'll leave it there until you get back from your break. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the table
  • Does "final works" have a specific meaning in art? I had to think for a moment what it actually meant
 Done
  • Most of the paintings have the medium missing - this info is known, surely?
  • There's one sketch listed in the first table - surely this should be in the second?
 Done
  • In the second table, the collection column is centre-aligned, but in the first it was left-aligned
 Done I was originally planning on centering everything, but I decided against it. ~ HAL333 22:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these comments are a result of Hal responding to my comments but being mid process in doing so. I agree with Chris that "final works" is rather odd and while I recognize that the "final works" is to contrast with the studies (which are effectively drafts for the "final works") it may be better to remove the sub sections and put the studies in another section entirely (in the process moving the "final works" to just the paintings section) Aza24 (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I broke it off into two sections: "Paintings" and "Preparative works". I was hesitant to title it studies because one is called a sketch. However, a provided a See Also link to Study (Art). Does that work? ~ HAL333 22:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

[edit]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*checkY"1837 portrait..." avoid starting sentences with a number.
  • checkYIs this list comprehensive, i.e. do we have a source against we can check every painting Cole ever made is listed, or is it an {{incomplete list}}?
I think I'm missing one or two. There have been a few sales and auctions in recent years. I'm currently going through a list and checking whether each one is in a public collection. ~ HAL333 00:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just finsihed going through all his paintings. All public documented ones are here now. ~ HAL333 22:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkYMedium, Dimensions -> dimensions.
  • In the table, the dimensions should use the multiplication symbol, not an "x", and I would also expect them to be converted to Imperial too. Good news is the {{convert}} template facilitates all that.
I'm hesitant to switch it to imperial. The metric system is kind of the go to in the art world. For example, infoboxes place the metric measurements before the imperial ones. ~ HAL333 22:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying switch it, I'm saying include both. It's common practice across the encyclopedia because while some understand cm, some only understand in. The convert template is your friend! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. ~ HAL333 04:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some entries are missing medium, some are missing dimensions.
  • What is the sorting methodology for the "Medium, dimensions" column?
  • checkYWhy isn't Louvre linked?
  • checkYNewark Museum is The Newark Museum of Art.
  • What makes some of his paintings more "notable" than the others? I'm asking why some have articles and all the rest don't (and aren't even red-linked)?
Some of the more well-known works have their articles; however there a quite a few that I would think are notable. Should I just wikilink them all? ~ HAL333 22:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the crux of my comment really. Some have articles and have been deemed "notable" per Wikipedia standards, why not all the others? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A sea of red it is? ~ HAL333 22:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just looking for consistency. And if you check out WP:WIAFL, you'll see that a list as a navigational aid is part of the criteria. You may need to make a few more articles! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm making these articles, it is becoming readily apparent why they didn't exist. There are barely any sources on them. Google and Jstor have next to nothing. ~ HAL333 20:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So they're not particularly notable then? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a few more. It seems to be completely random which ones I can find info on. ~ HAL333 04:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For year ranges with circa, please ensure you have it formatted per MOS:DATE.
  • checkYPeace at Sunset source says c. 1827, not 1827 precisely. Suggest all are re-checked.

That's all I have, will be claiming WikiCup points etc etc for the review. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting of Medium and dimensions column

This has been brought up by multiple reviewers; however, I do not know how to tackle it. I'm not sure if sorting it by surface area would be feasible. What about the works which are circular, oval, and curved rectangles? Should I leave it as is (sorting by medium), or get rid of it all together. ~ HAL333 20:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would separate medium and dimensions altogether into separate columns and then sort by longest dimension. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

[edit]
@HAL333: - some of the dimensions are missing, is this because you are still in the process of adding them, or are they unknown......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't gotten to them yet. I'll be able to make some more progress this weekend. ~ HAL333 18:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, The Rambling Man, Aza24, Dank, Hopefully I have addressed all of your concerns. ~ HAL333 23:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]

Doing shortly Aza24 (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • wrong date for ref 4 (and in the wrong place – or is that the template?)
  • I would remove location from ref 6 since it's the only one with a location (needs ISBN as well)
  • capitalize "Historic" in ref 8 (same in 65)
  • capitalize "Memorial" in ref 13
  • ref 26 is broken
  • should probably have spaces in title of 45
  • Would rather see LACMA spelled out (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) in ref 111 and 120
  • ref 6 is the only ref without a retrieval date, although I'm not sure if this is just because it's a book
  • That's all I got. Reliability looks good – nice to see a lot of referencing to the Museums themselves.
 Done I acted on everything except adding the access date to the book. ~ HAL333 19:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid, great work here. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_paintings_by_Thomas_Cole/archive1&oldid=980344161"