Talk:Beauty Revealed/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 14:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a great article on a surprisingly interesting topic. I only have a few small comments.

• Is watercolor on ivory a good redlink? Is it something common/studied enough to be an article?
  • watercolor on ivory now — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• The portraits could do with year captions, so we can get an easier idea of comparative ages.
  • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• I think long term should be long-term.
  • Correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• "including John Vanderlyn's Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos[9] and Horatio Greenough's sculpture Venus Victrix." Either of those works worth redlinking?
  • Not familiar enough with the oeurvres of either to know for certain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• "They held that Goodridge and Webster had been engaged." Presumably, you mean Webster's descendents held that? It's not clear.
  • Right. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• "Alexander Gallery of New York" Worth redlinking?
  • Doesn't look it, based on a quick Google search. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• "by Gloria Manney and her husband Richard" Who's she? A private art collector? A link isn't needed, but a clarification would be good, if we know.
  • Am downloading a PDF version of the Johnson catalogue, which should have this info. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• "In 2014 the Met's website listed Beauty Revealed as not on display." How about something like "As of 2014, Beauty Revealed is not on display."
  • That's how I would generally phrase it, but there's a NORN thread discussing whether or not that would be "original research". If you are of the same opinion as me (i.e. it's not OR, and {{as of}} is fine) I'll be happy to use the template. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • We do share that view, yeah. I can understand how statements like that could be used to hide OR, but there's not really a problem with this one. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• The art historian Dale Johnson" How about just "Art historian Dale Johnson"? A link to art history may also be good.

• Done and done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Writing in Antiques in 2012, Randall L. Holton and Charles A. Gilday said that" There's a tense shift, here.
• "The art critic Chris Packard" Same as above
  • Done both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• "As opposed to the "burdened" 1845 self-portrait and the non-eroticized one of 1832" Worth linking/including in the article?
  • Neither seem to have been discussed enough for articles. I'll see if I can dig both up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Typo (should have been 1830; the portrait is already in the article). The other one (here) only appears to be online at a very small size, and wouldn't show up well in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• It's not a traditional one, but if I were in your shoes, I'd cite the Common-place pieces as journal article with no page numbers. There's a volume and an issue number, and the journal has an ISSN number, so...
  • Good point. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Other than the above point, the sources look excellent. The images are great, the prose is generally excellent, the research is solid... A very nice article. J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Some category thoughts:

• A new subcat of Category:Paintings by artist would be good, or, if not, at least Category:American paintings.
• Category:Self-portraits?
• A subcategory of Category:Portraits by century?
• Category:Portraits by American artists?
• Category:Watercolours?
• Category:Ivory works of art?

• Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, great- I'll go ahead and promote once you've rephrased that tense-shifty sentence. I've fiddled a bit further with the categories, which are looking about right now. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I thought I got that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I seem to have gotten it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is still one significant problem with the article. These two sentences are virtually identical:

• "Although Goodridge was forty years old when she completed Beauty Revealed, the breasts depicted appear younger, imbued with a 'balance, paleness, and buoyancy' by the harmony of light, color, and balance."
• "Although Goodridge was aged forty when she painted this miniature, her breasts are depicted as young ones, with 'balance, paleness, and buoyancy', imbued in part by the harmony of light, color, and balance."

The sentences in the lead should summarize the body text, not repeat it. Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that sentence really belongs in the Description section, especially the second half of it. It would probably be more appropriate in the Analysis section. Kaldari (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reworded, but it's a key point so I'm averse to losing it entirely in the lead. I've attributed to Packard in the body, and although I can see the argument for including it in the Analysis section below, I'm not too sure it belongs there - the paragraph discussing Packard's views is not quite on the same subject. If J. agrees with you, though, I'll be happy to try and rework it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that there is a difficulty in finding a line between description and analysis; I thought Chris's judgement was reasonable, even if I may have chosen differently. If I was writing the article, I think the fact that the breasts appear young would go in the description section, while the quote would go in analysis. (I said off-wiki that I'm going to hold off promoting while there are discussions ongoing- if the editing back and forth continues, the review may need to be closed.) J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm now going to go ahead and promote. The article appears stable, as the discussion has died down, and the outstanding substantive criticism is baseless- until a reliable source can be found challenging the academic consensus that Goodridge painted this as a particular kind of self-portrait, this conjecture does not belong in the article. Other than that, the article has been looked at by a number of capable editors, all of whom have offered small improvements. I'm confident that the article looks roughly as it should, and comfortably meets the GA criteria. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)