Wikipedia:Peer review/Lion Attacking a Dromedary/archive1

Lion Attacking a Dromedary

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am taking it for FAC at some point, but it is a tad on the short side and I was wondering what I am missing --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

In response to your question above, here is some information that might be missing:

"The next year, Frederick Webster restored the diorama and it was put on display." Where was it displayed? What exhibits was it part of? Was it part of any promotional campaigns by the museum?
- updated --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the diorama between 1898 and its restoration in 2016?
The first paragraph in "Restoration and removal" can be split into two paragraphs: one about the restoration and one about the materials used.
Did this work inspire any future artists, artworks, or movements? Is there enough information for a "Legacy" section about its artistic influence?
- I can't find anything --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why was there a name change in 2017?
- added --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found some articles from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Gale Onefile. Let me know if you need help accessing these articles. Z1720 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I think I have gale through the DC library. I will take a look. Thank you! --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some further thoughts:

What was the reception at the Paris Exposition of 1867? Why did it win a gold medal? Newspaper articles from the time might explain this.
Why is it considered Verreaux's masterpiece, as indicated in the lede? There's one line in the reception area about one journalist calling it Verreaux's masterpiece. If it is his masterpiece I expect others will also call it that.
Is the diorama part of an artistic movement or representative of an artistic technique or movement? I wish there was more information about the "Art History" of the piece and how it fits within the visual arts movements happening at the time of its creation.

I'm posting a bunch of questions as prompts, hoping this will bring new ideas and sections to the article. Since the article is short right now, any additional information will help. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RD

Lion Attacking a Dromedary was created by French taxidermist Édouard Verreaux, part of Maison Verreaux. - I didn't know what Maison Verreaux is/was, and there's no article about it to link to. I understand that it was a family business that traded specimens 1, 2, but I think some explanation would be beneficial. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that when I first read it, I thought "OK, they had an art gallery or something", but then I see sources describing it as "the foremost supplier of natural history specimens in the world at the time.", and I think a small background on Maison Verreaux might be good. Sorta like Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture), but not nearly as long. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be useful to note that the Barbary lion is extinct? RetiredDuke (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I read is a fictional pastiche of five North African cultures and is based on what Verreaux thought an Arab looked like, I thought immediately about the figure's facial features; but then I read the sources and they say: We’ve looked at his costume, and it is derived from five different North African cultures. and The subject’s costume has been determined to be “derived from” at least five separate North African cultures(USA today) and The clothes on the “Arab” represent a mix of North African fashion.(The source is not in the article, it's from here) - Maybe clarify we're talking about costume/fashion here? RetiredDuke (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the source I linked above(1), they say Museum officials knew there were real human teeth in the mannequin and that the Verreaux brothers who created it had infamously taxidermied an African tribesman in 1830, but the museum had maintained there was no evidence of other human parts in the display., which makes sense to me because the teeth look real. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you need another source saying it was "Verreaux's masterpiece", it is a bit of a strong expression. Here is another one. Also, "first exhibit of it's kind to be seen in America". RetiredDuke (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the same book, it says that another taxidermist, John Wallace, made a work named "Tartar Hunter Attacked by Lions" that was "an homage" to this work. It won some medals at some exhibition. This page. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This book says that the "the purchase of such tableaux [Arab Courtier and Hornaday's Fight in the Treetops] marks out the AMNH as pursuing a particularly populist strategy". RetiredDuke (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a very old source, but it may be useful to say what William Temple Hornaday thought about it. Here. "Special Exhibition Groups", Andrei also talks about it here. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another small commentary here, on it being of a "new mixed genre". RetiredDuke (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's something you have to dig deeper: I have now seen several publications refereing to this work as being Jules' and not Édouard's. For instance here, a highly cited work. And others say Édouard. I am not knowledgeable about this work but I think it is worth a second look to see if Jules might have had a role on it too, just in case. I'm not watching this page or the article itself, so ping me if needed. RetiredDuke (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RetiredDuke: I have an answer here! As part of the 2016 restoration, the authorship was changed from Jules to Édouard. I will add a section on this. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

Not sure what is going on with Tait, I can't make the ISBN go anywhere, but I do find 978-1-743-32430-1 ... was checking because normally books use Title case, but this one is using sentence case ... seems it is also published as a journal article in sentence case, not clear which is being used.
- I used the JSTOR version that is linked. I will see how I can fix the ISBN --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taxidermy is used many times before it is first linked.
Perhaps both this source and this source can be used to give a fuller description of the issues with accuracy and the sensibilities leading to its removal from display. And there is no mention in the article that human bones are used.
- I use both of those sources. I will see if there is more that I can pull from them. I will clarify that I mean bones when I mean remains --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't at all clear to me why it lacked accuracy and was controversial, and I had to read both of those articles to get the full picture, so I hope you will add the additional detail provided in them. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you consulted these sources? [1]
- I've seen them, but I found the mentions to be passing. I will take a second look. Thanks! --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

This is very, very far outside of my area of expertise so apologies in advance if I comment on something very obvious. Below are some quick comments, but I will read through the article more thoroughly later this week.

This sentence from the lead, Despite the criticism, the diorama is considered to be Verreaux's masterpiece., is a very strong statement and I do not think it is entirely accurate (at least according to the information provided in the article). From what I can see in the article, only Miquel Molina holds this view. When I first read the lead, I thought this was either a consensus from multiple people or at least a view held by multiple people. I think the current wording is too strong if this is a view held by only one person.
I have no idea what the Maison Verreaux is referencing in the first sentence of the "Creation and early exhibitions" section. I would add some sort of descriptive phrase to help an unfamiliar reader.
For this sentence in the lead, Since the 1890s, Lion Attacking a Dromedary has been criticized for its lack of accuracy and sensationalism., could you clarify who is criticizing this?
I have never read an article like this on Wikipedia so apologies if this is very obvious, but why is the "Depiction" section put so far down in the article? Wouldn't it be more helpful to a reader to start with a description of the diorama before getting into the history?
Should the year be specified in the second image caption since it is specified in the first image caption?
I know the removal is still relatively recent, but has there been any further updates on how the museum is handling this situation?
Does the note need citations to support the alternative titles?

I hope these comments are helpful. I will look through the article again later this week. Have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]