Wikipedia

Talk:Alfred Gilbert/GA1

< Talk:Alfred Gilbert
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Aza24 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago78 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 06:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Happy to review this article. My process is essentially going through each section and giving comments on things like prose and clarity. After that I'll look at the broadness, images, sources and such. Expect comments soon (24–48 hours) Aza24 (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking this on, I look forward to your comments. Mujinga (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Lead

Infobox:

  • Imo the "Portrait of sculptor Alfred Gilbert by Frederick Hollyer (1887)" is unnecessary, "Portrait by by Frederick Hollyer (1887)" would be fine
  • Would use "London, England" both under the birth and death dates (assuming he died in "London, England" – haven't got there yet
  • Would link "Victorian"

Will come back to the lead after the rest of the article

Early life
  • Feel free to ignore this one but imo "Berners Street was at that time centred around artists and musicians" may flow better as "At that time Berners Street centred around artists and musicians"
  • Link Hertfordshire
  • Hmm would link Sculpture in "his true interest of sculpture" since otherwise the article about a sculptor wouldn't have a single link to sculpture!
  • Not sure if this would make sense but maybe "Eager to learn, he also worked in the studios of Sir Joseph Boehm, Matthew Noble, and William Gibbs Rogers[4] but Gilbert was to credit Boehm and his assistant Édouard Lantéri as his true teachers (perhaps "at the time/of the time" would make sense to – to make it clear that he had other good teachers later.[1]" would make more sense?
  • Fine by me.
  • When did his brother die? (e.g. "who died 2 months later of tuberculosis at the age of 20" or "who died of tuberculosis at the age of 20, 2 months later" – something like that, with 2 months as whenever the actual time was)
  • This isn't necessarily obvious the way the text is now, maybe adding something like "died of tuberculosis at the age of 20 later that month" would be clearer? (You can probably phrase it better than me)
  • I think you missed the part were they got married, was that when they eloped? Worth clarification for sure
  • I would simply add it like "In Paris they married and lived first at the Hôtel..." any more details than that are fine in the personal life section

More on its way

Early works
  • Admittedly it's a little confusing how much the end of the early life section and the early works section overlap, I would rather see everything after "Later that year..." be merged into Early works, but if you disagree feel free to share your thoughts on this.
  • i prefer it this way since we deal with his life first then the artworks, but this is a structure i inherited when coming to the article (i haven't written it from scratch) so i'm not super tied to it either. Mujinga (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • As long as there's a reason, sounds fine to me.
  • "formed a trilogy which referenced his own life" is worth clarification, trilogy as in representative of what? His artistic progress?
  • the source says "In 1903 Gilbert explained to Joseph Hatton that three of his large bronze statues, Perseus Arming, Icarus (1884, National Museum and Gallery of Wales, Cardiff), and Comedy and Tragedy: ‘sic vita’ (1891–2; a cast in the National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh), formed a trilogy symbolizing aspects of his own life." Mujinga (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Hmm I guess this is ok, the source itself doesn't seem to be anymore helpful on what aspects of his life the trilogy is in reference too.
  • I think "biblelot" is worth linking to the wikitionary or perhaps something in parenthesis with the definition
  • i remember pondering this, the problem is the wiktionary definition doesn't cover it, it seems to be a specialist usage here, which would then need to be cited, so i left it Mujinga (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The line "Perseus Arming was to become a particular inspiration for the New Sculpture movement." seems repetitive since isn't the new generation of artists referred to before simply those of the "New Sculpture movement"? I think merging this is worthwhile here.
Creative period
  • Slightly ambiguous "he built a foundry– I'm assuming this foundry was for making it easier for him to sculpt, this could be clarified and connected better to the rest of the text: "He built a foundry with Thomas Stirling Lee and Edward Onslow Ford to increase his output" or something?
  • "which individually represented Fawcett's virtues." doesn't seem to be what the source says. The sources notes that they were 7 virtues, not necessarily those of Fawcett, probably just in reference to the Seven virtues.
  • "He made an epergne (1887–1890) given to Queen Victoria for her jubilee by officers of the British Army" this is rather confusing, was the epergne commissioned by the Queen or the officers? Or did it just end up in the hands of the queen eventually... maybe: "He was commissioned by officers of the British Army to make an epergne (1887–1890) for Queen Victoria's jubilee and later a chain..."
  • "Writing in British sculpture and sculptors of today (published in 1901)," is unnecessary with the source right there, I would rather see an introduction to who Marion Spielmann is, like "Victorian art critic Marion Spielmann wrote in 1901 that..."
  • To be honest, the quote above it self confuses me, is it in reference to one of the recently mentioned works? What makes its inclusion here more important than its inclusion in the legacy section?
  • "Gilbert's following sculptural work of note was" might be more to the point as "Gilbert's next major sculpture..."
  • Years for Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain in parenthesis?
  • Whats the point of mentioning the other monuments if Gilbert was not involved? Maybe something like "After the death of philanthropist Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury in 1885 Gilbert was commissioned for his next major sculpture, the Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain" ?
  • The line "The memorial was commissioned in 1886 and officially opened at Piccadilly Circus in London in 1893." is also odd, chronologically. Why do you say when it opened before you explain the commision process. I think the commision year should simply be put in the earlier section and the opening year put later when the critics' reactions are discussed. Perhaps the commision year could be put in the next line "After the death of philanthropist Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury in 1885 Gilbert was commissioned in for his next major sculpture, the Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain"
  • Is this: "The fountain is now well-regarded and seen as a national treasure, but at the time it was controversial, with opinions on its value mixed. The mainstream media criticised the design of the fountain which led to passing flower girls being drenched in water and hooliganism meant it needed to be guarded for a year. Eight drinking cups on chains had been provided for pedestrians to quench their thirst and Gilbert stated that just one day after the opening, only two cups remained." all sourced by ref #9?
  • "In this period" – the period has not been defined other than being called "creative". Either replace "period" here with a year/years or add years in the headings of each other sections. Either way, clarifying with years for when the statues were made is important here
  • Likewise, most of the statues need years in parenthesis like you have for other works – is there a reason they aren't here for these?
Discussion

@Mujinga: I'm stopping here to get your thoughts: I'm finding quite a few things to comment on that are worrying me that reading further in the article these issues of clarity, organization and referencing will not slow down. I admire the work you've done but in my mind some series copy editing and revisions would be needed to get it through GA. That being said, if you're open to it, I'm willing to work through the process but I think it would be a slower one than most GANs. If you'd rather work on it yourself and then come back I would be happy to review it again. I wonder if you might look at the [Grove Art article]: that could have more information and diversify your sources further, since at the moment it is so heavily focused with only 2. Aza24 (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Aza24: Hiya thanks for the detailed review so far, I've been watching but not commenting since I find when reviewing that I end up answering some of my own questions by the end of the first review wave. I'm of the opinion it's good article standard, so I'd be happy to continue with the review and could answer what's been commented so far quite quickly I think. Having said that, more sources are always welcome so I'll check the Grove. I can ping you again when I've worked through the comments (if not today then tomorrow). Mujinga (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Aza24: Hiya, I've now answered everything, I hope. Regarding the grove, I listed the sources below, from what isn't already in the article unfortunately I can't buy / find online any more of these texts, some of which I remember trying before. However, I did find the body doubles online (it's currently listed in further reading) so I'll check that one out, it has a chapter on Gilbert. Mujinga (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Mujinga: Apologies if I alarmed you, the article is by no means badly written, I just wasn't sure it meets the GA criteria at the moment. However, I see that you're more than willing to work to do what it takes, so I will continue reviewing and go through your responses – I'm sure we can make this work. The Grove Art article recommendation was a suggestion to reference that article itself, rather than what it sources and since it doesn't seem like these sources will be easy to access that might make the most sense. Normally, I would have given comments a lot sooner, but irl issues and other WP occupations have made me distracted... anyways I'll try to go through the rest of the article now. Aza24 (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi, no worries on timescale at this end, real life should always come first. I also think we can get there. OK I misunderstood you about the Grove article, but ended up adding some details from it anyway, so that came good. I feel generally there is quite a lot of misunderstanding going on so I'll set out my stall here. I'm grateful of course for the thorough review and things like the addition of wikilinks, however I'm also stating to notice you aren't keen on my writing style, which leads to quite a few comments about rephrasing and also edits like further→furthermore, a chimney piece in bronze→a bronze chimney piece, Another 1892 commission which Gilbert struggled with→Another 1892 commission Gilbert struggled with. As already mentioned i didn't create the article from scratch so i don't think I am owning it or even approve of all the writing currently there, but in my opinion there's a line between editing for sense and editing simply for stylistic reasons, and everyone's style will differ. Every time I go over an article I see things to change (as with my last edit on the article here).
Regarding your edit summary no reason to have "called..."), i prefer my version of a gossip magazine called Truth to the gossip magazine, Truth since it draws attention to the name of the magazine. When I first added it I didn't notice, I think it's quite funny that a gossip magazine is called Truth. So that one I changed back, happy to discuss further. You haven't edited here since the 10th so I'll carry on answering the comments below, then ping you. Next time round if it's no trouble please leave me a note in an edit summary or with a ping if you are done and want me to answer stuff.
When answering below and I say "see discussion" I'll be referring back here to what I just wrote. Mujinga (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Aza24: Hiya I've answered the rest of the comments now. Oh and for body doubles the copy I found was just the introduction not the whole text, so no good. Mujinga (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Mujinga: I didn't mean to impede your writing style! Those changes I made were rather my simply working to make sentences more concise and to the point, but they aren't the kind of changes I could fail this review for so if you prefer to feel free to change back. Anyways, I'll go through your responses now – and place the article on hold, which I should have done earlier. Aza24 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • J. Hatton: ‘The Life and Work of Alfred Gilbert R.A., M.V.O., LL.D.’, Art Journal [London] (1903) [Easter issue] - out of print
  • I. McAllister: Alfred Gilbert (London, 1929) - unreliable hagiography, out of print
  • A. Bury: Shadow of Eros: A Biographical and Critical Study of the Life and Works of Sir Alfred Gilbert, R.A., M.V.O., D.C.L. (London, 1954) - out of print, added to further reading
  • L. Handley-Read: ‘Alfred Gilbert: A New Assessment’, Connoisseur, 159 (1968) - cannot find
  • M. Roskill: ‘Alfred Gilbert’s Monument to the Duke of Clarence: A Study in the Sources of Later Victorian Sculpture’, Burlington Magazine, 110 (1968), pp. 699–704 - in article
  • Victorian High Renaissance (exh. cat., ed. R. Dorment; Minneapolis, MN, Inst. A.; Manchester, C.A.G.; New York, Brooklyn Mus.; 1978–9), pp. 42–52, 157–203 - catalogue, already have the book
  • R. Dorment: ‘Alfred Gilbert’s Memorial to Queen Alexandra’, Burlington Magazine, 122 (1980), pp. 47–54 - in article
  • B. Read: Victorian Sculpture (New Haven and London, 1982) - out of print
  • S. Beattie: The New Sculpture (New Haven and London, 1983) - out of print
  • R. Dorment: Alfred Gilbert (New Haven and London, 1985) - in article
  • Alfred Gilbert: Sculptor and Goldsmith (exh. cat., ed. R. Dorment; London, RA, 1986) - catalogue, already have the book
Creative period continued
  • Lol I love this line: "and was a man about town in his trademark dress of cape, sombrero and walking-stick" but admittedly its not very encyclopedic sounding :)
  • It's the "was a man about town" part that sounds too encyclopedic. The source makes it clearer that he wasn't a "man about town" but a archetypal 1890s man, so perhaps that could be clarified and in the process "man about town" be removed.
  • "asked by the Prince (later Edward VII) and Princess of Wales (Alexandra of Denmark)" is confusing since it makes it sound like Edward VII was later the prince of Wales. It may be clearer as "asked by Prince Edward (later King Edward VII) and Princess Alexandra (later Queen Alexandra) of Wales" or something... honestly, maybe the "later" stuff isn't necessary at all
  • "Lady Lytton wished to remember her husband" I think something like "Memorialize" or "commermerate" would be a better verb here
Disgrace
  • This line " Instead of finishing the tomb for Prince Albert Victor, which only had seven of the twelve saints around it, Gilbert took another royal commission, namely building the mortuary chapel for Prince Henry of Battenberg." would benefit from rephrasing... maybe "Instead of finishing the tomb for Prince Albert Victor, where only seven of the twelve saints had been completed, Gilbert took on another royal commission to build the mortuary chapel for Prince Henry of Battenberg"
  • Likewise "He sent his family before him to Bruges in Belgium and stayed behind to pack up his studio, destroying many casts in the process." would be better as something like "He sent his family to Bruges, Belgium as he stayed behind to pack up his studio, destroying many casts in the process."
  • When did Edward VII offer Gilbert the studio?
  • "the work in progress" – which one? the tomb or chapel?
  • "and then proceeding to do so even though he was clearly asked not to." is kind of a mouthful and can be avoided all together if the earlier part is altered to something like "compounded his problems by publishing photographs of the incomplete (which ever commision it was) in The Art Journal without the Royal family's permission."
  • I don't really understand "To make matters worse, the photographs depicted ivory and bronze statues which had been originally attached to the tomb but sold off by Gilbert in 1899. They had been replaced by the bronze casts which still sit on the tomb, but the prince had paid for the originals and was angered." – the bronze statues had been replaced by bronze casts? Also, what are "the originals" do you mean to say that the prince was annoyed that he paid twice? And why did Gilbert even sell them?
  • maybe it's good to go back to the sources, it is quite complicated. this is what ODNB says:
Not wishing to add to Gilbert's misfortunes, the prince of Wales lent the sculptor a studio at Windsor Castle. But the tomb remained unfinished and his royal patron's patience had worn thin. In 1903 Gilbert asked Edward VII for permission to publish photographs of the statues from the Clarence tomb in a monograph Joseph Hatton was writing on Gilbert for the Easter number of the Art Journal that year (the Easter Art Annual). The king replied unequivocally on 3 February 1903 through his equerry Sir Deighton Probyn that he would not sanction any photographs to be taken of the tomb: 'why publish a “discredit” which the unfinished condition of the memorial certainly is?' (Windsor Castle, Royal Archives, Z 475/261).
As though to destroy any hope of reconciliation with the royal family, Gilbert went ahead and published photographs of statues for the tomb which he labelled 'working models'. In fact, the photographs clearly showed the original ivory and bronze statues of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary and the Virgin which he had taken off the tomb and sold to an art dealer in 1899 and had then replaced with the all-bronze casts which are still on the tomb. Since the king had paid for statues in ivory and bronze, and since the article also noted the private collection of which these chryselephantine figures were now a part, their publication put an end to any further dealings between the artist and the king. At court, Gilbert was accused of dishonesty.

And Grove: 

 Gilbert was by this time hemmed in by personal and financial problems, both largely of his own creation. To alleviate the latter, he sold replicas of the saints’ figures and, ignoring the royal veto, he published photographs of the replicas in the Art Journal, accompanied by acknowledgements to their owner.
  • This section as a whole is rather choppy and too much detail, something like "To make matters worse, the photographs depicted the original ivory and bronze statues which had since been removed replaced by the bronze casts. This angered the prince, who had paid for the originals, (hadn't he paid for both?) and he broke off all communication with Gilbert."
  • The line "By the mid-1900s, Gilbert was in serious problems" seems unnecessary and doesn't really make sense ("in serious problems"?) I would suggest just taking it out and letting the reader see his dire situation from reading the following problems, rather than just telling them.
  • I like it as intro to the paragraph, because let's face it, Gilbert's career trajectory was quite unusual so I think it's worth emphasising that at a time when he should have been basking in glory, everythign was going wrong with his career and his personal life. Mujinga (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "two well-circulated articles" – clarify the effect of these articles, I'm assuming they were critical but we don't want the reader to have to assume that
  • Not sure "demented" is the right word here
  • The issue I have is that demented is a pretty extreme word that makes it sound like the person writing the letter is in the wrong, or unjust in their accusations. I would change to something closer to ODNB. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "Unfortunately"? sounds POV
  • "making his situation even more hopeless" seems too dramatic considering the next section is "Rehabilitation"... maybe "making his situation more dire" or "worsening his situation"
  • The word "hopeless" sounds too judgmental – plus it's used in the quote right before this section.
  • "When his son Francis went to see Gilbert" this makes it sound like Francis is his son and then isn't, what about "When Gilbert's son, Francis, came to see him..."
  • "Instead of supplying an inset portrait of Mrs Wilson as requested, he included a watercolour painting of his second wife" doesn't make sense, "his second wife" sounds like it's referring to the individual just mentioned, "Mrs. Wilson"
Rehabilitation
  • "since he had fled from England to Europe decades before" ?? "England to Europe" isn't a little contradictory
  • "Fortunately friends rallied around him and Gilbert settled down." is confusing me, fortunate to what? Usually "fortunately" is used after something bad is stated (eg. Tim broke his back, fortunately he had good insurance) but I'm not sure what the "broken back part" here is...
  • "after he had fled England" didn't he leave multiple times? I year might be helpful here
  • "The monument commemorated Alexandra, who had previously been King Edward VII's wife, until his death in 1910." seems unnecessary as Alexandra has been introduced multiple times and it's probably self explanatory in the first place.
Personal life + Death and Legacy
  • Not much to say about these section, very concise
  • is the page number after "support the family until his death" supposed to be 306–7,328?
  • I'm admittedly not sure what an "export ban" is, could this be linked to Export restriction?
  • hmmm i suppose it is a form of Export restriction but that seems more to do with trade so might only confuse, this is specifically for works of art with a national importance - the uk govt can freeze the sale and therefore gain time to buy the work to keep it in the country. From the sources, Times says "a minister placed a temporary ban on its export", ATG says "its export was blocked" Mujinga (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • It's probably fine how it is.
  • I don't think the selected works section is necessary, already well discussed throughout the article and in the infobox
  • It's just that a lot of time is spent discussing these 3 works in particular, and the infobox basically is the selected works section already. And the infobox is likely where a reader would first go to find the notable works. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm coming round to your point of view, it doesn't serve much purpose. I didn't find a guideline on it and I don't see pages for visual artists using it, so I'll take it out Mujinga (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

General

edit

@Mujinga: This article is shaping up nicely. I have a question about the lead, Grove calls him a "English sculptor, medallist, goldsmith and draughtsman." while you call him a "sculptor" who "explored other techniques such as goldsmithing and damascening". I think the "draughtsman" label in Grove is unnecessary but what are your thoughts on calling him a "sculptor, medallist and goldsmith"? BTW I have crossed out all addressed issues and the ones that are not crossed have a response from me. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Aza24: Hiya thanks for the further comments, I've replied. I think he was mainly known as a sculptor, although ODNB says "sculptor and goldsmith". Draughtsman seems indeed too much, medallist I'm also not sure if it can be justified since there's only one sentence in the text. There isn't much about goldsmithing either to be honest, just the epergne sentence. I can check the sources again but I don't think there is much in them about his goldsmithing. Mujinga (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Mujinga: I think I'm happy with where this article is, thank you for your prompt responses and collaborative attitude. Promoting to GA now, congratulations! Aza24 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfred_Gilbert/GA1&oldid=973028520"