Talk:Equestrian Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki

File:Jacques-Louis David - Equestrian portrait of Stanisław Kostka Potocki - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jacques-Louis David - Equestrian portrait of Stanisław Kostka Potocki - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 12, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-03-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki is an oil-on-canvas equestrian portrait of Polish patron, politician and writer Stanisław Kostka Potocki by French painter Jacques-Louis David. It was painted in Rome in 1781, when the artist and the subject met during David's stay at the Villa Medici after winning the first prize in painting at the 1774 Prix de Rome. Potocki displayed the work at Wilanów Palace, his residence near Warsaw. It later became the property of the Branicki family, and was looted by German forces during World War II. After the war, it passed into Soviet hands, before being repatriated to Poland in 1956. The painting is now part of the collection of the Museum of King John III's Palace at Wilanów.Painting credit: Jacques-Louis David

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 10:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. Will start today; should be ready with comments either later on or in a few days. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• A few initial comments made: more to follow. It reads well and I'm impressed with the level of scholarship. Several of the points below are, at least individually, above the strict requirements of GA, so please do come back with any questions or if you think I've misunderstood things. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I've now completed my first pass. Again, it's a good, interesting and scholarly article, and does a good job of taking a non-specialist reader through some quite technical material. There are various comments below of varying importance: the article cannot pass until the image licensing and sourcing concerns are resolved, and I'd like to see a critical mass of the prose, clarity and MOS points addressed before I'm comfortable passing under criterion 1. Again, please do ask or quibble if you feel I've been unclear or unfair. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

    @UndercoverClassicist Thank you for taking this on! Your comments are very helpful and thoughtful. I appreciate your thoroughness and am looking forward to addressing these, hopefully later today. Ppt91^talk 13:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

    @Ppt91: a small thing, but it's much easier to read (and notice) your replies if you make them a separate bullet point, like this:

    * Question (me)

    ** Answer (you) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

    @UndercoverClassicist Just saw this. Will do moving forward! Ppt91^talk 18:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

    • Almost there! Image licensing is nearly there, but needs a few things sorted; there's a couple of minor prose, style and layout matters that I'm happy for you to take your time over, and then some last referencing bits which will partly depend on how you choose to resolve those. It's nice to see the article coming together so quickly. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      @UndercoverClassicist I hope to have everything else addressed by tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Ppt91^talk 01:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

      No problem, take your time. I've deliberately held off moving to the formal GAR (and therefore forcing a choice between pass/fail/7 day hold) on the assumption that you'll be checking in; my sense is that, assuming all of the points below can be addressed (since they fall into NPOV and verifiability, they are materially important to the GAR), we'll be good to go. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

      @UndercoverClassicist Thanks, I appreciate it. Things have turned out to be unexpectedly busy IRL this week, so might need to ask for a bit more patience on your end. I will ping you as soon as everything is ready. Ppt91^talk 23:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

      @Ppt91: I don't mean to rush you, but how are things looking on your end? I don't think there's a whole lot left to do here: two bits of phrasing to sort out for WP:NPOV and then one spot check. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

      I am sorry I've been so delayed, but hope to finally get to it tomorrow. Thank you for following up and I appreciate your patience! Ppt91^talk 03:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

      @UndercoverClassicist I think now all should be addressed. Let me know and thanks again for your very thorough review. I really appreciate it! Ppt91^talk 20:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

      • Passes with flying colours. Congratulations: a really impressive piece of work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Resolved comments

General Text in non-English languages (e.g. Le peintre Louis David 1748–1825) should be put into {{lang}} templates, so that the article can be correctly understood by the Wikipedia software and read by screen readers. Y done (I believe all French names in the text are now with template) The Polish title in the lead still needs one (instead of manually writing 'Polish:', just put the Polish text into {{langx|pl|text}} and it might be helpful to use {{lang|pl}} for names like Stanisław Kostka Potocki and Wilanów (turn italics off). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Y all done (except for two linked articles) Ppt91talk 17:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC) There are a lot of images in this article: I appreciate that it's a visual arts one, so we would expect a lot of visual material, but the usual 'going rate' is about one image per screen. Given that the article has a gallery section, could or should some of the images be moved there, particularly if they are not directly discussed in the text? Comment: I have to agree with you, and I've been quite unsure as how to best arrange them. In fact, when you look at the history, I've gone back and forth between having another gallery and trying to organize the images logically across the article. What are your thoughts on creating a second gallery mid-way through the article to improve visual clarity? I've never seen an article with two galleries that wasn't explicitly a collection of images: I can see the argument if the two galleries are very strictly thematically defined. What's stopping you from simply putting them into the existing gallery, though? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist I'll get to the rest of the new comments below later today. For now, I've moved a number of images to the gallery. I think it's easier to navigate. The ones discussed in the text are kept. Let me know what you think, thanks. I think the current layout works: I think it's just on the right side of the line of over-illustration, and certainly fine for GA. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) A few of the comments below talk about the use of direct quotation: in general, direct quotes from sources are good when the phrasing is particularly striking or important to the article's argument, or when the opinion expressed needs to be closely associated with its source (for example, because it is controversial, or because the source itself is important). Where sources are simply quoted to provide authority to uncontroversial statements of fact, it is generally better to paraphrase them rather than to quote directly: you are still acknowledging them through citation. Comment: I've gotten into the habit of including more direct quotes, very much unlike one would in academic work, because some editors have previously pointed out that paraphrasing in regard to historical sources on en-wiki can often include an interpretative lens that borders on WP:OR, which I don't necessarily agree with. I'll be happy to address the ones you mention specifically. If you're concerned about being called out for OR, you can always paraphrase in the article body and then quote in the footnote, which gives you verifiability without the problems mentioned above. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) I assume that Stanislas and Stanislaw Potocki are the same person? Is there a reason why the two different names are used here: if using both is the right call, could there be a brief explanation in a footnote for the reader as to why? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Yes, though I am afraid there is not much that can be added here; it's very common for these works to have different naming conventions. I assume foreign (not Polish in this context) publications use "Stanislas" spelling because it's easier to pronounce, but that's just speculation. Both the Polish and the English titles are included in the article and appropriately sourced. Ppt91talk 21:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Perhaps a simple footnote on the first use of "Stanislaw"; something like Stanislas is an alternative spelling of Stanislaw. - would make sure that readers understand that "Stanislaw Potocki" is not a new character. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) That would have to be sourced because otherwise I am speculating (as far as WP is concerned, obviously). The title in English also uses "Count" which the Polish title doesn't. In other words, I don't know why that spelling was originally adopted and whether it was David or someone much later, and trying to explain it might actually make it more complicated. I believe I am consistent in distinguishing between the two by using the spelling Stanislas when referring to the painting and Stanisław when referring to the individual throughout the article. Ppt91talk 22:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Understood, and I think that's a sensible editorial decision. I'd still make it clear to the reader that you've made that call: the footnote could read something like: David used the the spelling Stanislas for Potocki's first name, which is generally spelled Stanisław in modern scholarship.[ref, if you want, perhaps to a source or two that use Stanisław] In this article, the spelling Stanislas is used when discussing the portrait, while Stanisław is used for its subject.. That way, there's no tricky sourcing issues, since the only two statements of fact are easy to demonstrate from secondary sources. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Y done (Added In this article, the spelling Stanislas is used when discussing the portrait, while Stanisław is used for its subject. as a footnote right after title to clarify. Any further explanation would require sourcing, but any unfamiliar reader will now know the distinction at the outset.) Ppt91talk 16:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Fair compromise; happy here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Lead In 1805, David's Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki and the rest of the Potocki family's art collection opened to the general public, becoming one of the first public art museums in Poland.: being very nit-picky, a museum can open, but I'm not sure a painting can. Suggest rephrasing to something like In 1805, the palace opened as one of the first public art museums in Poland, displaying David's Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki alongside the rest of the Potocki family's art collection., or whatever you think best captures the circumstances. Y done by the Germans is a little imprecise (all of them?) and arguably a little colloquial: do we know more specifically - the German army or SS, for example? Or do we know of a particular Nazi official who ordered its plunder? Otherwise, looted by Nazi Germany would seem slightly more formal and encyclopaedic. <Y done (rephrased to sound more precise) has been described as one of David's masterpieces: there's a case for citing this one, even under MOS:LEADCITE, as it implies a quotation or at least attribution (that someone has described it as such). Y done (footnoted it with the same two inline citations I use later, which I believe should suffice) {{!xt|With Potocki lifting his hat to greet the spectator, the horse bows, while a dog can be observed barking in the lower left-hand corner of the painting}}: the phrasing here is a little clunky, I think primarily because of the 'with' phrase. Suggest reworking as a straightforward series of actions: Potocki lifts ... Y done (improved language to sound less convoluted) Ppt91talk 17:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) the portrait was restituted: is 'restituted' a term likely to be used or understood in that context by readers without an art-history background? Y done (linked to "Cultural repatriation") A wikilink helps, but it isn't perfect: it still requires the reader to, at the very least, mouse over or click away. Would anything be lost if the sentence were rephrased to the portrait was returned to Poland and displayed in the National Museum in Warsaw? Being nit-picky, it wasn't in the National Museum to begin with, so can't be "returned" there. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Not nit-picky at all. Changed to "the portrait was returned to Poland and placed in the collection of the National Museum in Warsaw". The whole thing is a bit more nuanced, politically speaking, as the country became a Soviet satellite state in 1948 and the museum did not really have much of an agency as a cultural institution (despite organizing exhibitions etc.), but I think as long as its linked, the reader will have a chance to familiarize themselves with the institution's history and there is no need for more detail here. Ppt91talk 18:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC) That works well; fully agreed on the level of detail. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC) The circumstances of Potocki's portrait commission by Jacques-Louis David remain debated: this reads as if David commissioned Potocki. Agreed. This should hopefully work better Potocki first encountered Jacques-Louis David in Italy during the artist's 1779-1780 Grand Tour, although the details surrounding the portrait's commission remain debated.. Ppt91talk 16:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Happy with this. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Historical context whose patrons included "enlightened middle class and aristocracy": not quite grammatical: suggest whose patrons included members of the "enlightened middle class and aristocracy". I'm not clear why the quote marks are there: is this Palmer's opinion, or is she simply stating a well-established fact? If the latter, I'd be inclined to drop them, as the phrasing is pretty everyday. Y done Quotes are gone, but I'm afraid the grammatical problem remains: 'middle class' as a noun is a group, not individuals (you can't say, for example, "my friends include working class"; you can either say "working-class people" or "members of the working class". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC) It's clunky indeed. How does "A prolific portraitist, David pursued commissions from an array of patrons, including members of the enlightened middle class as well as the aristocracy." sound? :Ppt91talk 18:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC) That's a lot better, though perhaps 'enlightened' is enough of a value judgement to merit couching in the source's voice (e.g. not only the aristocracy, but also what Palmer has called the "enlightened middle class"). After all, many of these people had some very unenlightened views, at least by today's standards. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Y done The footnote after in favor of classical forms is a duplicate of the following one: it also gives a rather large page range. You should either adjust the page ranges to be more specific to the individual sentences, or delete the first instance of the repeated footnote. Y see comment below between 1772–1775: date ranges like this should almost always be spelled out in article text: between 1772 and 1775 Y done Aleksandra née Lubomirska: no need for the "née" here, unless she was already known by a different name. Y done New characters (e.g. Winckelmann) should be briefly introduced. Y see comment below Known for his shifting political alliances: I think it would be worth going a little into David's political involvement here, especially as his politics are important to the article: the article currently gives the impression that David was a painter who shifted his ideological sympathies, but it's probably worth clarifying that he was also a fairly significant political actor himself, even though most of that happened post this painting. Y done (included details about his revolutionary sympathies and later becoming the First Painter of the Empire in 1804 under Napoleon; I am a bit reluctant to add much more so as not to go on a tangent; let me know if you think this works) I'm still not totally happy with the known for (see spot checks below), but otherwise I think this is going the right way. I still wonder whether "supported the French Revolution" is understating as to the degree to which he was part of that revolution: he had an active hand in the execution of Louis XVI, and was practically its head of state at one point. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) I haven't gotten to these yet, but I see your point now and agree with you. I've changed to While the artist's political alliances shifted over time—he actively participated in the French Revolution before being appointed the “First Painter to the Emperor” by Napoleon in 1804—David remained committed to the tenets of Neo-Classicism throughout his career. for now, which is in line with what the source says. I am happy to add a longer quote from Lorenz Eitner's book discussing his political activity as a note, if you think that'd be appropriate? Ppt91talk 00:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Good paragraph: perhaps find an additional citation for he actively participated in the French Revolution: it isn't remotely controversial, but also isn't in the cited source. You could probably crib one from his biography, or from a related page (I'm sure there'll be one on Adèle de Bellegarde, for example). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist Agreed that it should be supported with another source. I think Eitner's description of his political participation is appropriate and I've added quote as a separate note. While pretty long, it provides additional useful information for those interested without going on a tangent in the article itself. Ppt91talk 19:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Happy with this. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) championed a style of rigorous contours, sculpted forms, and polished surfaces: as above; here, I'd be inclined to stretch it out a little and explicitly attribute this idea to Galitz; it reads oddly to go straight into a quotation, without really acknowledging it as such, while still couching the idea in Wikipedia's voice. Y see comment below Wikilink and/or explain classical, for a non-specialist audience. Y see comment below I'd still explain something to the effect that "classical" in this context means "echoing Greek and Roman art". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Agreed. Changed to David's style was also marked by a commitment to classical forms, echoing the visual forms of Greek and Roman art, particularly following his visit to Naples in 1779. I am reluctant to go any further into stylistic descriptions so as not to exceed the scope. Ppt91talk 15:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC) visual language to avoid repetition Ppt91talk 15:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC) His visit to Naples in 1779 is said to have further cemented the artist's commitment to Neo-Classicism: do we have any details on why or how it did so? Comment: I've rewritten the paragraph to incorporate your suggestions. It includes a clearer introduction to Neo-Classicism with a new (also Met website) source, removed unnecessary footnotes, and paraphrased the earlier quote. Of course, more can be written, but I think for the GA purposes this will be sufficient. Lots of good improvements here. precise contours, well-defined forms, and refined surfaces is a close paraphrase of the source: to get around this problem, I would put Galitz's name on it. A slightly out-there suggestion would be to rework the paragraph something like: Between 1775 and 1780, David lived in Rome, where he was influenced by the paintings of Italian High Renaissance and early Baroque masters, prompting him to abandon the dominant French style of Rococo in favour of an approach characterised, in the judgement of the art historian Kathryn Calley Galitz, by its precise contours, well-defined forms, and refined surfaces. His style was also characterised by his commitment to classical forms, particularly following his visit to Naples in 1779.) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Happy to concur and thanks for taking the time to suggest your own phrasing. I've included in its entirety, except for very minor edits, with both footnotes at the end and American English spelling for consistency. Ppt91talk 22:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC) a moment of great political decline for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: this reads as a controversial or challengeable statement. Is it cited to Kuc in the following sentence? If not, I think it should be cited somewhere. Y done What exactly does a prominent patriot mean in this context: does 'patriot' have a more specific meaning than 'someone who loves his country'? Did he show this patriotism in any particular way? Y done (Cut down on history and removed "prominent" and only kept "patriot". I also realized that it was not Kuc who mentioned any of this, so it seems a footnote is missing. As I look for a better replacement, I am temporarily citing an entry on Stanislaw Kostka Potocki from a reputable Polish encyclopedia. While tertiary, it is a reliable source and should be sufficient for the review purposes.) Appreciate that this is a work in progress, but I'm no longer clear as to why his patriotism is being mentioned: I think we assume that most generals are at least more-or-less patriotic. Was Potocki's patriotism particularly extreme, notable or noted in that context, relative to what we might take for granted? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist Usually I'd agree that it seems redundant, though it does make more sense within the context of the partitions, as he was a fervent supporter of Polish independence at a moment when the country was gradually losing its sovereignty; the war with Russia was a decisive conflict in that regard. Given that there were also Polish intellectuals and nobility who were political conformists, the term patriot seems to fit well. Now, I recognize this background is not explained in detail, but since the partitions are mentioned and sourced, would you be opposed to leaving as is, at least for now? Ppt91talk 20:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Happy to chalk this one up to a matter of taste and drop it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) would become relevant to David's portrait of Potocki: I appreciate it's a long story, but could you briefly set out how they were relevant? Y done (Changed to His contributions to the country were recognized by two meaningful state awards, the Order of Saint Stanislaus in 1780 and the Order of the White Eagle in 1781. Both distinctions would later be reflected in David's depiction of Potocki., as this is discussed later. I am also happy to remove that sentence entirely if you think that is better) I'd suggest cutting meaningful (are you implying a contrast with other, 'meaningless' state awards?), or else expanding it to give some suggestion of how prestigious these are (e.g. 'Poland's highest/second-highest civilian award'). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Y done (I removed "meaningful" and readers can follow the links for more information; there is also more context later) Ppt91talk 20:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC) seminal is a little WP:PUFFERY: it would be more encyclopaedic to say something like History of the Art of Antiquity, described by the later critic Scholar McScholarson as "the most seminal work of art scholarship ever published". Comment: Let me start by saying that I am obsessed with Scholar McScholarson and quite disappointed I might never get to read their work. As for Winckelmann, I've edited that part to remove puffery and provide some more context while not going into too much detail. Given your extensive knowledge of classical antiquity and its historiography, I will welcome any criticism you might have regarding my description of his work. Ppt91talk 21:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Commission Conversely: as currently written, the two accounts aren't mutually exclusive: Potocki could have asked David to paint him in 1780, and the two met up in Naples to complete the initial sketch. If the two version do diverge, can we explain how? If not, another adverb is needed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) I removed it, as more context is provided in the following paragraph. Ppt91talk 17:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 3,600 French livres: how great an expense should we visualise here? It's clearly a big number, but is that an everyday expense for a nobleman like Potocki, or a huge one? Y done (removed it entirely; it's not really relevant) Respectfully, I think that's the wrong call: we never know what someone will be looking for when they come to the article, so removing true, relevant and sourced information from the encyclopaedia altogether is usually a net loss. It's much better to have the price without context than not to have it at all. Even if it's not possible to do a direct inflation calculation, could we add a salient detail like the approximate average income of a nobleman, or the sale price of some other big-ticket item? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) I should have been more specific and said "confusing" as opposed to "not really relevant". Let me elaborate and if you still think it's a net loss, I'll be happy to revert and provide context as you suggest. That information comes from Tom Crow's book on 18th-century art in France which is an important work as far as art historical scholarship, particularly social art history, is concerned, but it may not be the best source for such minute details. It only mentions Potocki's portrait in passing and I am not certain how he came up with that specific number (I relied on a limited-access digital copy and was not able to double check his footnotes). In any other case, I'd include it because it is, indeed, an important detail. However, according to recent research conducted by people at the museum in Wilanow (the source I cite a lot in the article, which will be part of an upcoming book-length publication on the portrait), there are some discrepancies as far as the price is concerned and I could not find more evidence for that specific amount. Theirs is definitely the most extensive research on this subject and I'd rather leave the price question out entirely until the whole book is published and available. Let me know your thoughts. Ppt91talk 23:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC) I understand; if you've got good reason to suspect that the figure is untrue, and solid reason to doubt that the source genuinely backs it up, there's a strong case for removing it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Naples riding School: capitalisation is awry here. Is 'the Naples Riding School' the proper name of the institution, or is it simply a riding school in Naples? Y done (capitalized Naples) Footnote 11 is repeated: see my comment on a similar issue in the section above. Comment: Following my recent changes, I believe it's now footnote 14. If so, then I'd like to use it twice, except I moved the first one up after "...artist's oeuvre" and kept the other one as it was. I feel more comfortable exceeding these minimum standards given the length of the paragraph and the number of facts referenced per WP:MINREF. Ppt91talk 21:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC) It's 15 in the current revision, as I see it. This isn't so much meeting standards as avoiding clutter and redundancy: by default, a citation is taken as supporting all of the text in front of it, back to the last citation. If the first point were a direct quotation or controversial, there would be a case, but I'm not sure I see one here: especially given that the second sentence already implies the first (the first sentence says that David grand-fils confirmed the version of events; the second is explicit about exactly what that version of events was). I'm happy to drop this one as out-of-scope for GA, so will leave the decision to you. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Thanks. Since it's not a MoS issue as far as GA criteria go, I'd like to keep as is. Ppt91talk 15:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Very well; happy to drop it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Ryszkiewicz contested this narrative, citing insufficient historical evidence.: I've finally put my finger on what's bothering me here: is the evidence that Ryszkiewicz cited in support of his thesis inadequate, or did Ryszkiewicz claim that the scholars who reconstructed the painting's timeline had insufficient evidence on which to do so? A little more detail on exactly what Ryszkiewicz considered insufficient would be helpful, if available. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Y done (Changed: In the 1960s, Polish art historian Andrzej Ryszkiewicz challenged this narrative, asserting that there is inadequate historical evidence to confirm that the 1780 encounter between David and Potocki in Naples had ever transpired.) Ppt91talk 16:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC) I've made a minor CE for grammar; otherwise, very happy. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Does the king and artist refer entirely to Ferdinand? I'm concerned that it's a little flowery for an encyclopaedia: perhaps Ferdinand, a keen artist, would be better? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Briefly explain what the Salon was. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Y done (It should be just the "king"; not sure where the artist came from; added very short description about the Salon to the extent it can be done without additional sources) Ppt91talk 21:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Analysis the "straw underneath the horse's hooves" might indicate that the scene takes place in a stable, "the stately architecture in the background suggests an imaginary scene": again, the quotation here doesn't sit right. If you want to couch it as specifically Schnapper's idea, I'd suggest reworking the whole thing as the art historian Antoine Schnapper has suggested that the straw... Y done (all paraphrased except for "stately architecture") Well handled. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) He is dressed in "finest" clothes: as above, I don't think this should be a direct quote if this is an uncontroversial description. If there's some symbolism to the specific clothes, colours, fashions etc. that a contemporary audience would associate with being particularly fine, it would be good to mention that. Comment: Changed to indicate that his is Palmer's description; she doesn't go into any more detail, though I think it is important to emphasize the quality of his clothing and the term "finest" seems alright for this purpose, even if language precision is somewhat lacking. Yes, good solution. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Footnote 19: another repeated one. Comment: Per earlier, it's sufficiently long in my view to keep both. First is as an introduction of Larry Wolff's point about horsemanship and second is a direct quote. Ppt91talk 22:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC) There's a stronger case when you've got a direct quote; at any rate, either solution is fine by the GA criteria. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) showing his "rapid response to a glamorous sitter": this reads as if it's been taken slightly out of context: does Bordes not mean that David's speed of painting showed his rapid response, rather than the painting itself? Y done (The footnote was incorrect; it was Michael Levey and I am not sure why I had Bordes instead. It's fixed now and the quote is removed, while he's used as another scholar to call the work a "masterpiece".) "offers a premonition of the manner in which [David] was later to treat modern, national subjects": is it possible to infer what Eitner is trying to say here about the 'manner' under discussion? Comment: I will return to this after done with the rest of this section; if my memory serves me right, it is in reference to David's later representations of prominent individuals, including the equestrian portrait of Napoleon crossing the Alps, but I need to confirm. Leaving as is for now. "horse's forequarters correspond to a tapestry fragment of Decius Mus, after Rubens": I'm not sure the direct quotation (as opposed to paraphrase) is the best way to express this, as many readers will benefit from an introduction to at least one of Decius Mus and Rubens. If you really want to keep it, suggest a footnote? Y done (Only kept "horse's forequarters" and paraphrased the rest; included a new source from Apollo Magazine on the work by Rubens and the story of Decius Mus, but I don't want to go into much more detail, as that is not really directly relevant to the portrait as far as I understand.) Impressed with this: takes the reader smoothly through the questions. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) scholar Charlotte Guichard: nothing wrong with the epithet 'scholar', but it's a lot less specific than the others: do we know anything about her discipline, nationality or era? Y done "breaking dynamically into the space of representation, David’s glittering name shines forth, catching the light and the viewer’s attention": this specific quotation is supported by a footnote giving a twenty-five-page range: could that be narrowed down and perhaps the macro-footnote moved to the preceding sentence, if she does indeed spend that long talking about the dog's collar? Y done (Ha, she certainly does not and I've narrowed it down to the two pages where the work is discussed.) Allison Lee Palmer: introduce her so that we know who she is, and why we should care what she says. Y done (It was already addressed earlier) Moreover, the French art historian Philippe Bordes argued that David's painting of Count Stanislas Potocki is an example of a portrait illustrating a society icon by an artist "determined to climb the social ladder".: this is a little wordy. Is Bordes situating this portrait in a broader context of similar works painted for similar reasons? If so, how about something like the French art historian Philippe Bordes situated David's painting among other contemporary portraits of society icons by artists "determined to climb the social ladder".? Y done Happy with this. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Finally, I've adjusted the last quote. Bordes refers specifically to David's portraits of prominent figures and I've changed the wording to: Moreover, French art historian Philippe Bordes positions the painting alongside David's other contemporary portraits of prominent social figures, created by an artist he asserts was "determined to climb the social ladder". I hope this works. Ppt91talk 22:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) To be clear, is Bordes talking exclusively about David, not other artists in the same position? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Correct, he's talking only about him. I also double checked the quote just now and corrected it, including and linking a comparison to another portrait by David Bordes specifically mentions alongside Potocki's portrait: Moreover, French art historian Philippe Bordes positions the painting alongside David's other contemporary portraits of prominent social figures—including the 1788 depiction of the French chemist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier and his wife Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze—created by an artist he asserts was "determined to engage his talent to climb the social ladder". Ppt91talk 22:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Great sentence. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC) illustrating the "taming and harnessing" of an Eastern European subject: I'm reading a subtext from this that we're meant to take the horse as a metaphor for an Eastern European person. Is that correct: if so, could it be more explicit? Comment: I'd like to think about it more, so will leave for now and return to later on. see above historian Larry Wolff contended that the Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki effectively employed the motif of horsemanship to symbolize civilization: 'contended' implies that this is a debateable or debated point; is this the right verb in that situation? Separately, works of art are discussed in the present tense: Wolff contended that the Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki effectively employs... Y done (I am not sure I agree regarding "contend" as I've seen it used in the same way as "argue", but I am happy to change it to sound clearer.) I'm afraid I'm still not happy: we now have 'pointed out', which implies that the statement that follows is objectively true, but that statement includes the value judgement 'effectively'. The needle needs to be threaded here: we need to be clear that this is a judgement/opinion, while not putting WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the suggestion that it might be tendentious. Perhaps something like considers? The same problem emerges with noted in the following sentence, unfortunately. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) No longer any concerns here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) I also appreciate your explanation regarding the use of tense past tense is appropriate when reconstructing a scholarly debate or citing views no longer considered correct. I've previously had discussions about the proper use of tense when citing scholarship, including with people who are much more academically advanced than I am, and this is the first time I come across a logical explanation. I was always taught to just apply either past or present and remain consistent throughout, so this is certainly a helpful framework moving forward. That's very kind; the section is mostly there on tense, but does need another go-over to catch a few remaining exceptions. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Scholarship in this paragraph should be in the present tense (Wolff considers, Bordes situates or has situated, since we're talking about 'live' scholarship. The past tense is appropriate when reconstructing a scholarly debate or citing views no longer considered correct. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Reception and ownership Historical records reveal that David started working on the Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki in Rome and departed for Paris on July 17, 1780: can we be any more specific about what those 'historical records' are? Y done (Updated to reflect it's Richard Cantinelli's 1930 book) A Woman suckling her child: it looks like the capitalisation here has gone wrong. Y done Is On David's paintings at the 1781 Paris Salon the title of Diderot's work? If so, it should be in title case and italicised (if a book) or in quotes (if an essay/article/etc): if not, the On should definitely be lower-case, but I'd suggest removing it altogether as obvious from the preceding text. Y done (I've left the date and the source, which is Michael Fried; if I find the original title, I'll add it to the quote) {{!xt|has been said to receive the highest amount of praise}}: any reason not to simplify to received? Y done the equestrian portrait of Stanisław Kostka Potocki: this isn't the title, so should it simply be the portrait? Y done king John III Sobieski: capitalise 'King' here (MOS:JOB). Y done Briefly explain what the November Uprising was. Y done at Petit Palais in Paris -> at the Petit Palais in Paris? Y done {{tq|where David's painting remains on view}}: always good to give an {{As of}} for statements like this; it's possible that it will be taken off view at some point in the future (it certainly seems to have been before 2016, for example). I would like to see an explicit source for However, these claims are frequently undermined by incomplete provenance records or by the fact that the works remain in private collections, preventing independent scholarly verification: in particular, the suggestion that the private ownership of the copies has "frequently" been an issue in their study, and that it has prevented scholars from verifying them. Comment: That claim regarding limited access referred specifically to one private collection in England where requests to see the painting have been repeatedly denied. Perhaps it is easiest to just have all the relevant information in the note. I've changed to Assertions about the existence of purported additional copies of the portrait have also emerged in the 21st century, though these claims have not yet been verified by researchers. and included a footnote to the source. This is something that the paper clearly states. I think it's best to keep it simple. Ppt91talk 00:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Soviet Russian currently links to Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic: unless there's a good reason to single out the Russian SFSR, I'd suggest changing the text to Soviet and the link to Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist Done, thanks for catching this. Ppt91talk 14:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC) In an 1877 ledger from Wilanów Palace, Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki is described "as a study by David" made in 1781 which "was bought later"...: the quote marks here read like scare quotes, and I'm not sure the second meets the threshold for quotation vs paraphrase. Suggest In an 1877 ledger from Wilanów Palace, Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki is described as "a study by David" made in 1781 which was bought later.... Although Belisarius Begging for Alms has received the highest amount of praise from contemporary critics: what does contemporary mean here? Do we mean "in David's lifetime": if so, should be Although Belisarius Begging for Alms received the highest amount of praise from contemporary critics. Gallery I wouldn't put the current holders (e.g. CAHR) in brackets like that; it's not clear to a casual reader (who hasn't seen a whole bunch of captions in art-history books) what their relationship is to the image. Suggest expanding to something like currently held by the .... Receipt issued by David to Potocki for art sale in Rome in 1780 (Central Archives of Historical Records): Grammar's a little wonky here (for the sale of an artwork, if we can be that precise?). Wincenty Kasprzycki, View of the Palace from the Park, (National Museum in Warsaw) shows the wing of the palace in which David's painting was shown before 1834: this isn't quite a sentence. We need something like Wincenty Kasprzycki's View of the Palace from the Park, held in the National Museum in Warsaw, shows the wing of the palace in which David's painting was shown before 1834. Y done (removed credit line from description since it's a historical document not an artwork and the other one is print material; both images are appropriately credited and tagged on Wikimedia Commons; rephrased the rest based on your suggestion) Ppt91talk 21:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) The horse and the oval Potocki portrait still have the bracketed credits. As Wikipedia is not a specialist publication, I think that's a little jargonistic: casual readers might not understand the 'code' that a museum in brackets means "currently held by..." (but a person's name in brackets probably means "created by..."). Separately, is there a reason why the sketch is graphite laid on paper rather than simply graphite on paper (or should it be graphite lead on paper?)? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Right, I guess what I was trying to say is that we do not need credits because these are not artworks, unlike the credits I kept. The inclusion of institutions in image captions for artworks was something a reviewer of Henryk Stazewski mentioned to me. It's also what I did in Joseph (art model). Is there a specific policy that talks about this distinction? It seems to me that's more of a preference. Ppt91talk 22:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC) No, there's not, and it's certainly above the GA bar. Happy to drop this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Notes and references Note 3 is a huge run-on sentence, and the grammar isn't quite right (it should begin The first record...). Suggest reworking. Y done (Rephrased it to sound less clunky.) Note 2: See Bordes, Philippe (2022). Jacques-Louis David: Radical Draftsman. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 93 could be expressed much more briefly as a citation: you can wrap the 'mother' reference in a {{refn}} tag to avoid the problem of double <ref> tags. Comment: Moved it into a footnote to support the claim regarding the sketch; also, using with the current references formatting displayed an error and I am unsure as to how to fix it. I think you've managed to find a solution: I suspect the problem was that you had a <ref> tag inside another <ref> tag. To fix that, change the first to a {{refn}} template (and therefore the end </ref> to }}. If you want the original solution, I'm happy to see if I can fix it if you put it back into the article; equally, if you're happy in its current form, that's great too. Note 3: is Catalog des Tableau the correct title? If French, shouldn't it be Catalogue des Tableaux? Y done (There was a typo in the text I copied it from, so it's now fixed.) Note 4: from Central Archives of Historical Records -> from the Central Archives of Historical Records? Y done Note 5: see my comment above on Note 2 for making the citation neater and more consistent with the rest of the article. see below There is a Harvard error in Notes 3, 4 and 5: Guzowska et al. 2019 does not point to a valid citation. Comment: I can't seem to be able to link it correctly using this format and I've tried changing the parameters multiple times. The only other solution I can think of is providing the full citation, unless of course you know the solution here. I've fixed it: the problem was that the Harvard ID for that citation was {{Guzowska|Kwiatkowska|Walawender-Musz|2019}}, not G. et al. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist Thanks so much. I am happy to keep the above (Note 2 originally, now changed to footnote) as is. I think all in this section has now been addressed? Ppt91talk 14:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC) The source cited as An Outline Of 19th Century European Painting is incorrectly capitalised. Y done Source 28 (Kangaslahti 2016) is available online: [1] Y done Note 1: the cited quotation needs a page number. Y done Note 2: It's a little odd to have a citation in such a completely different style to the others in the article. Could the footnote be moved into a {{refn}} or {{efn}} template, and the citation placed into the same format as the others? Thank you! This is great to keep in mind moving forward--as you see, I rely on the automated references generator which has its drawbacks--but I am now realizing that it's just redundant to be adding Polish sources in addition to an already existing reliable source. Perhaps this is something to consider if I ever intend to bring this to FAC, but this level of detail exceeds GA expectations. Also, any foreign text should technically be translated anyway, so having it there just feels superfluous, especially considering that we rely on an existing translation by someone else already. I've removed the Polish text completely, which also solves the footnote problem. Ppt91talk 21:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Note 3: there's a lot of information here, implicitly cited to Guzowska et al. Could we have some more specific citations, with page numbers? As with n2, shifting the tag for the footnote might help. No pages here, unfortunately. The report was published online by the museum conservators and the print publication is not yet available, at least in the U.S. So I think we need to keep as is, which for GA purposes is fine as the text is linked and accessible. Most browsers now also give the automatic translation option for those really interested in details. When I have access to the print version, which I believe will be more expansive, I'll add it. Ppt91talk 21:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Ah yes, I remember: my mistake. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Note 4: I'm not clear what the string of text AGWil., Zarząd Pałaców, Muzeum i Parków Wilanowskich, sygn. 184, pp. 49. means. As earlier, I don't see a point of having the references to Polish sources there anymore. It's a reliable secondary, albeit online, source officially published by the museum. Note 5: page number for citation? And see comment on note 2. See above. To explain a little about what I mean: the 'easy' way to do this is as follows: {{refn|text of the footnote.<ref>citation for that text</ref>|group=Note}} Ppt91talk 21:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist I think everything in this section has now been addressed? Ppt91talk 16:08, 27 April 2023 Image licensing File:Jacques-Louis David - Equestrian portrait of Stanisław Kostka Potocki - Google Art Project.jpg: checks out. Y File:Jacques-Louis David, An Antique Sculpture of a Horse, 1780, NGA 93052.jpg: no issues Y File:David Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki 1781 dog signature detail.jpg: no issues Y File:David - Belisarius.jpg: no issues. Y File:Stanisław Kostka Potocki.jpg: needs a US PD tag. Y done Should be PD-ART: the image itself (the photo) wasn't published before 1928, but it's a faithful (and so non-copyrightable) representation of a painting that was. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC) File:Van dyck tomaso 1634 1635.jpg: needs a US PD tag. Y done As above. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC) These should now be resolved. Happy here (for reference, the US tag goes inside the art one: {{PD-ART|PD-US}} UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) File:Wincenty Kasprzycki - Widok pałacu w Wilanowie.jpg: this is certainly PD, but the licensing is wrong: it's presented as Reprodukcja własna ('own reproduction'), but clearly hasn't been uploaded by Kasprzycki, who died in 1849. Needs tagging with PD-ART for both Poland and the US. Y done (replaced with another image with a PD tag) Fine: I've transferred the same tag to the original image (as it clearly applies to both, and it makes sense to correct/improve Commons where we can), so up to you which one you want to use. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Thanks. This one seems to be a more faithful representation of the work's original color palette. Ppt91talk 23:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC) File:David Count KP Portrait 1781 Wilanow Palace 2019.jpg: the licensing is currently fine for the photograph, but there should be additional PD-ART tags to show that the portrait itself is PD. Y done Needs one for the US as well (there's also a legal question mark as to whether photographs taken inside museums are PD, but that's above either of our heads). I think we'd need to delete a ton of material from Wikimedia Commons if that were the case. Ppt91talk 23:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC) That is certainly true. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC) File:Portret konny Stanislawa Kostki Potockiego. ca 1781 (41919616).jpg: likewise, needs a US tag. Y done Looking again, I realise that this very technically isn't PD in the US: as the image has a mount (with writing on it) and a 3D frame, it isn't covered by PD-ART as a 'faithful representation', and by the same token, the photo (as opposed to its subject) doesn't qualify as a pre-1928 publication. The simple solution is to crop the image to remove the frame. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC) I do not believe so. This image was uploaded from the Polona collection under a GLAM partnership between the National Library of Poland and Wikimedia Polska, so there must have been a reason for this specific cropping and the work's copyright has been released directly by the institution. I've added the US PD tag but we should not be altering images uploaded in collaboration with an officially approved WF chapter. Ppt91talk 22:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Ah yes, I see: followed the link in the big 'POLONA' banner, and the page does indeed say it's PD. To me, that's good enough to say that they've released their rights somehow: the possible headache is that they might be simply confirming that the work doesn't qualify for copyright in Poland, which isn't enough for Commons, and it's quite common for things to be out of copyright in Europe but still in copyright in the US. Overall, I'm not 100% sure that we've got the right PD tag, but I'm satisfied that there's sufficient proof on the Commons page that it is PD, so I'm happy enough with this one. If it ever did get challenged, we'd need someone with far more expertise than me. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC) File:JL David Receipt for work for Potocki 1780.jpg: as it's from an unknown author, do we have proof that the copyright holder has uploaded it with the CC licence (I strongly suspect that the answer is 'yes', but none is given on Commons). File:3. Reprodukcja Portretu Stanislawa Kostki Potockiego pedzla Waclawa Pawliszaka zamieszczona w ksiazce Ernesta Luninskiego.jpg: as above. I've uploaded both images; they are from Polish public archives (Central Archives of Historical Records and Polona) and both are in public domain. In each case, the author died before 1953, which would mean copyright expired in Poland. I've added tags for both, which I believe should be enough. Otherwise, I can remove them and re-upload as fair use, but I don't see why that would be necessary. Ppt91talk 23:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Happy with that for the portrait (PD-ART is, weirdly, happy to lump together Poland and the US): to be absolutely clear, is "File:JL David Receipt for work for Potocki 1780.jpg" scanned from a book published in 1911 (that is, the whole image has a 1911 date, not just the reproduction of the portrait)? For the photograph of the receipt, I'm less happy: I'm satisfied that the receipt was made before 1928, but what's uploaded to Commons is a photograph, not the receipt itself. Do we know when and by whom the photograph was taken? Again, the question-mark is whether it qualifies as PD in the US, for which an author's death before 1953 isn't necessarily enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC) As for the portrait, I included the date of death the author of the book. That reproduction was made around 1905. In each case, copyright has expired. For the photograph of the receipt, the source being the Central Archives of Historical Records which officially states that reproductions of public domain works from their collections are by default in public domain. Specifically, here is a translated quote from a document which describes their GLAM collaboration with Wikimedia: The transfer of works into the public domain allows institutions dealing with protection and dissemination of cultural heritage to make digitized collections available (i.e. digital copies of works of art, photographs, archival materials, illustrations, maps and others) without concerns about copyright infringement. Faithful digital copies created in the process of digitization of these materials are also considered to be in the public domain. It makes it possible cultural institutions to make them openly available to a wide audience. The archives have already uplaoded over 3700 of their images to Wikimedia; although this is not one of them, it is still an image released by the Central Archives of Historical Records and used in the online report published by Wilanow. Given I include the appropriate credit line from the Central Archives of Historical Records and provide Wilanow's website as the direct source--and that the image itself and the subject of the photograph are in public domain--we have no reason to be concerned. In other words, anyone willing to question the validity of the public domain argument in this case would have to specifically refute an official claim from a GLAM document. Ppt91talk 23:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC) I understand: the photograph of the receipt is PD because the copyright holder on that photograph is the CAHR, and they have released it under CC 1.0, per the document you attach. Similarly, the CAHR are entitled to release that copyright because the receipt itself is old enough to be out of copyright (and arguably uncopyrightable anyway). Could the date, source and author field on Commons be updated to draw that (pedantic but important) distinction between the receipt and the photograph: particularly, to clarify that CAHR is the author of the photograph? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist Y done (added a description along with a link to the file) Ppt91talk 16:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Source checks These checks refer to this version of the article: 3b: the source doesn't use the term "Neo-Classicism"; it does use "classicism", and talks of his interest in the High Renaissance and Baroque. Are these terms completely synonymous? I think this is now resolved given extensive edits to that paragraph. Ppt91talk 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 28: I don't see anything to support highly publicized on p295. The show's publicity is discussed elsewhere in the paper, but page 295 supports the inclusion of the work and the "extensive" character of the exhibition, so I removed "highly publicized". That the show was popular really doesn't have much of a direct impact on the painting. Ppt91talk 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 1b: no issues. 1a: although his political allegiances shifted in the cited text has become Known for his shifting political alliances: I'm not sure that known for is supported by the source, though I'm sure another could be found to justify it. No longer relevant. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 3a: caused him to purge his work radically of all traces has become prompting David to gradually abandon: this seems like quite a stark difference. Now amended. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) As I can't access these sources, could you please provide the original text to support the following: 8: Guile 2013, supporting In addition to being a statesman, Potocki was an avid art collector and had previously translated Johann Joachim Winckelmann's seminal 1764 work titled History of the Art of Antiquity into Polish Multiple times, which is also why the article is cited in its entirety; here are some selections to support the claim; for Winckelmann: "Stanisław Kostka Potocki’s translation into Polish and interpretation of Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s History of the Art of Antiquity (1764) constitutes a littleknown albeit important ‘afterlife’ of the Kunstliteratur from which it draws its inspiration, and heralds the arrival of Winckelmann’s legacy to the eastern borderlands of Europe." (p. 2); for art collection "Access through marriage to the Czartoryski latifundia and to almost unparalleled wealth enabled Potocki to aggrandize his art and book collections, as well as develop multiple properties across the Commonwealth’s frontier." (p. 7) and further descriptions cited to "exhibition catalog, Grand Tour: The Birth of the Collection of Stanisław Kostka Potocki, Warsaw: Pałac Muzeum w Wilanowie, 2006" Ppt91talk 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 14: Rosenblum 1973, supporting The portrait has been described as one of David's masterpieces "David was soon to achieve a total rejection of the Rococo in a trio of masterpieces of 1780-81 executed both before and after his return to Paris from Italy - St Roch, Portrait of Count Potocki, and Belisarius - all of which, together with the Funeral of Patroclus and a group of other earlier works, were then exhibited at the Salon of 1781." (p. 575) Ppt91talk 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 21: Levey 1993 supporting Potocki's portrait was shown alongside Belisarius Begging for Alms, Saint Roch Interceding with the Virgin for the Plague-Stricken,The Funeral Games of Patroclus, and a composition titled A Woman suckling her child, all of which were praised by the French Enlightenment philosopher and prominent writer Denis Diderot "Unfair to Boucher, too optimistic about Greuze, somewhat reserved over Vien, Diderot deserved to see the last high hope of the French school make his debut--and to greet with perceptive enthusiasm Belisarius receiving Alms, St Roch interceding with the Virgin (Marseille), The Obsequies of Patroclus, A Woman suckling her child, and Count Potocki (Warsaw)" (p. 292) note that the titles vary here slightly and I used the preferred institutional contemporary titles if the works are available Ppt91talk 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

General

• As the article uses a lot of references, I think a bibliography section would be helpful. There's no requirement for one under GA criteria, but it would make it a lot easier for the reader to get their head around the foundations on which the article is based.
  • Comment: It's a good idea and I'll put it on my to-do list, but I want to address the more pressing issues you raised first.
    • That's very wise, and I'm fully behind that as a priority order. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• While not a strict requirement, it's good for accessibility if images have alt text, so that those with visual impairments can engage with them.
  • Comment: This is a good point and something I'll also get to when other criteria-related comments are taken care of. Ppt91^talk 17:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• I'm uneasy at the distinction drawn between plundered by Nazi German forces and falling into the hands of the Soviets: you'll know more about the circumstances than me, but my intuition is that we're talking about more-or-less the same thing in both occasions - the forcible taking of a work of art by an invading/'liberating' force in the immediate aftermath of conflict. My immediate comparandum is the Treasure of Priam, which gets pulled out of one of Berlin's flak-towers in 1945 and promptly hidden in a basement in Moscow for the next half a century. What does the evidence allow us to say about how David's work ended up in the 'main' Soviet Union? Incidentally, do we know anything about where this painting was between 1945 and 1956?
  • This is also relevant to the 'Reception and ownership' section.
    • As for the phrasing specifically, "falling into the hands of the Soviets" is quite accurate because all we know is that the painting was taken by the Soviets from Germany and later repatriated when Poland had already become a Soviet satellite state. That's clearly stated in "Reception and ownership" section. Unfortunately, that is as far as my sources go. I imagine there will be more research on the provenance during the Stalinist period in the future, but these things are notoriously difficult to track due to missing museum records and historical data. I'd certainly love to talk about it more--especially that 1945-1956 happens to be the period I cover in my dissertation and I have a lot of thoughts about Stalin's cultural imperialism--but pretty much anything beyond what I just said would be WP:OR. Ppt91^talk 22:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Do you have a quotation to hand? As the phrasing has worked out to be not-entirely-neutral (and I appreciate how weird/wrong it sounds to be arguing for even-handedness in how we treat Nazis and Soviets), it might be good to couch the "falling into the hands of..." in a secondary source's voice (at least in the body text), which would make clear that the bias is an artefact of the sources, not of our own editorial bias (and so *not* OR). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  I just looked at the exact wording in Rzeczpospolita and the literal translation would be "ended up in the Soviet Union"--would you like me to use that instead? And just to be clear, the Soviet Union was obviously as much of an invader as Nazi Germany, though in the context of post-war cultural repatriation during the Stalinist period, this kind of phrasing isn't as problematic as it might seem at first. Ppt91^talk 22:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'd distance Wikipedia's voice from the framing a little: something like Between 1939 and 1956, the timeline of the painting's whereabouts is unclear: in the words of Schnapper, it "ended up" (Polish: Schnapper's exact word) in the Soviet Union. That way, we don't have to go into OR by framing things more specifically, but it's also clear to the reader where the decision to frame things like that was made.

• To be clear, my issue is that falling into the hands is not a WP:NPOV statement that the painting ended up in the USSR by unknown means; it's at least very close to loaded language (WP:WEASELWORDS) in that it gives the agency to the painting, thereby implicitly exculpating the act of its removal. That's an editorial moral judgement: given that we don't have a source as to anything about its taking, it's WP:OR to imply that it was legitimate. Compare for instance The Parthenon sculptures fell into the hands of the British Museum, which is the sort of thing that's regularly called out as whitewashing. Again, to be clear, I'm talking about the full explanation in the body text here; it's perfectly fine for the lead to use "ended up in the USSR" without explanation, though you could footnote See [[#Section header]] below.

• I'd be interested to hear more about in the context of post-war cultural repatriation during the Stalinist period, this kind of phrasing isn't as problematic as it might seem at first, though purely for personal interest rather than the GA. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist Ok, thanks again for your patience. I've been completely preoccupied with teaching and a whole lot of end-of-the-semester commitments, though another reason behind my delay was an ILL order which I had hoped would clarify some of the issues raised in this section, i.e. the chronicle of exhibition history at the National Museum in Warsaw. I knew the portrait had been brought back to Warsaw by 1956 and that there was an exhibition titled "From Cezanne to David" organized at MNW that year; it was an impressive display, including Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People and numerous other works from the Louvre which I imagine would be virtually impossible to loan today. Alas, I could not find Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki listed among the works on view (it is likely it was exhibited, though the entry in the book I borrowed is relatively short), which would have helped me tremendously in the context of this article.

  The dearth of sources is the real issue here, resulting in incomplete records and making it hard for us to give any more context. I think the best course of action will be to quote directly from the Rzeczpospolita article (it is a newspaper of record, after all) though only include "ended up" in. The closest we have to a description of what happened between 1939 and 1956 is During the Nazi occupation, the painting was taken to Germany, then along with other war spoils, it ended up in the Soviet Union, where, after wandering, it returned to Poland in 1956, first to the National Museum in Warsaw.. The idiomatic use of "wandering" doesn't make sense in English and if we were to use the entire quote, then it would only further the confusion.

  As for the broader context of "repatriation", it's an extraordinarily complicated topic, but to give a rather crude analogy: the legitimacy of this restitution was on par with the legitimacy of the Yalta Conference. Despite being originally in an alliance with Hitler, the Soviets described themselves as liberators rather than oppressors and Stalin's propaganda machine started working overtime in Eastern Europe as soon as the war ended; even though Poland would not officially become a satellite republic until 1948 (some use 1947, the date of rigged presidential elections, but it was until a year later that political parties would be officially unified), cultural repatriation of works looted by the Nazis began as early as 1945 and the Soviet government helped coordinate these efforts to put responsibility for all war-time pain and suffering on the Germans.

  One example: in 1945, the National Museum organized Warsaw Accuses to illustrate the degree of cultural destruction wrought by the Germans by displaying broken frames, damaged artworks, etc. placing all of the blame explicitly on the Nazis; any works returned to Poland during that time and throughout the communist rule would be seen as legitimately restituted, often with the cooperation with UNESCO, and aided by the Soviets. Again, this is only a very brief summary of what is a very complicated subject the scope of which goes way beyond this article. But what I am trying to say is that we are talking about a painting originally stolen by the Nazis, which would then be brought back to Poland by those who had, at least on paper, liberated the country (even though they'd be directly responsible for imposing a totalitarian regime soon after). Ppt91^talk 17:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks; I appreciate the detailed explanation. I think you're absolutely right: quote and attribute the Rzeczpospolita article for the perhaps unavoidable, but potentially non NPOV, description of the mechanism. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist Done. I hope that the upcoming publication on the painting will help clarify this. I'll update when I have access to the book, hopefully later this year. Ppt91^talk 19:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Analysis

• • @UndercoverClassicist Replying to all remaining points in this section. One, I am becoming somewhat concerned with my overall interpretation of Wolff's reading of the work and I think it might be a good idea to rephrase completely so as to avoid possible misrepresentation. I have changed to: Analyzing Eastern European representation in the late 18th-century Western art, historian Larry Wolff considers the motif of horsemanship in the Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki, with its "taming and harnessing", as suggestive of civilization. He observes that the "the Polish nobleman astride a perfectly poised, intensely muscled horse, head bent in submission beneath a dramatic mane" is depicted with great discipline. To be completely honest, my brain is hurting in regard to this source; his work is central to my research more broadly and the more I get into it here, the more convoluted it seems to become. The above suggestion is not perfect, but to me it sounds clearer than the original phrasing. If you are content with the degree of clarity, I feel most comfortable leaving Wolff at that.
    • I'm not sure exactly what civilization means in this context: presumably, the subjugation of 'uncivilized' lands/people by 'civilized' (white, European, aristocratic) people(s)? In a nutshell, are we talking about a thing or a process? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

    @UndercoverClassicist Well his entire argument has to do with how the invention of Eastern Europe as a concept, a political and cultural counterpart to the West traditionally tied to the creation of the Soviet Union and its later subjugation of Eastern European countries, predates the Cold War and goes all the way back to the Enlightenment period. Here's the book blurb: This is a wide-ranging intellectual history of how, in the 18th century, Europe came to be conceived as divided into "Western Europe" and "Eastern Europe". The author argues that this conceptual reorientation from the previously accepted "Northern" and "Southern" was a work of cultural construction and intellectual artifice created by the philosophes of the Enlightenment. He shows how the philosophers viewed the continent from the perspective of Paris and deliberately cultivated an idea of the backwardness of "Eastern Europe" the more readily to affirm the importance of "Western Europe". So, in short, yes, we're talking about both. Ppt91^talk 23:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

    I suspect this one will need to end up fairly close to Wolff's text. Is it too much of a stretch to say that Wolff considers the motif of horsemanship in the Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki, with its "taming and harnessing", within the context of Enlightenment ideology, which called for for the so-called "civilization" of Eastern Europe by a Western-European culture centred on Paris?

    In any case, I think civilization needs some kind of explanation, clarification and framing, particularly as it's such a value-laden and arguably anachronistic term: I don't think Wikipedia can start throwing around the idea that only some people are "civilized", at least not in its own voice. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

    @UndercoverClassicist Here is the full quote. I wonder if you'll find my summary of his argument convincing; due to my work in Eastern European subject, I am biased and could have easily applied my own interpretative frame without fully realizing it. Anyway, curious to hear your thoughts. The idea of horsemanship, with its suggestions of civilization by taming and harnessing, was also essential to artistic images of Eastern Europe in the 1780s. In the Paris Salon of 1781 Jacques Louis-David showed his paint-muscled horse, head bent in submission beneath a dramatic mane. A foreleg is held aloft from the ground so still, with such obvious discipline, that the there would be no need to fear for any nearby cups and saucers. (Larry Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994, 103.) Ppt91^talk 18:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

    That does read (admittedly, out of context) like Wolff is saying that the image of horse-taming a horse was seen as a metaphor for the "taming and harnessing" of Eastern Europe. Perhaps Analyzing Eastern European representation in the late 18th-century Western art, historian Larry Wolff considers that the motif of horsemanship alluded to the "taming and harnessing" of Eastern Europe, in common with other works of art from the 1780s. Given that Wolff's use of it is ambiguous (does he mean civilisation as an abstract noun or a gerund?), I'd be tempted not even to include that word. Up to you; I'm happy so long as it's framed as Wolff's choice of words. This is fine for the spot check, too. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

    I changed to yours with a minor tweak; might end up rephrasing it at a later point, but I think for now this works well. As for Does Schnapper (or anyone else) say anything about the significance of the slightly odd setting - simultaneously a stable and a Classical temple? Is there some nativity symbolism going on here? nothing specific comes to mind, so perhaps best to leave as is. Thanks! Ppt91^talk 19:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Does Schnapper (or anyone else) say anything about the significance of the slightly odd setting - simultaneously a stable and a Classical temple? Is there some nativity symbolism going on here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Source spot-checks

Earwig is happy that there's no significant CopyVio. There are 28 references cited. I'm taking the Polish sources on WP:AGF, since I can't read Polish and I can't see anything sufficiently controversial to merit asking you to go through the effort of providing a translation.

• 19: Wolff 1994, supporting Wolff contended that the Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki effectively employed the motif of horsemanship to symbolize civilization
  • This has changed in light of my recent edits. Please let me know whether you'd still like any quotes. Ppt91^talk 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
    • I'd like a quotation to support whatever the article ends up saying about the painting being symbolic of "civilization", though I'd suggest that you do that after finalising what you want the text to read.
      • Now got it above. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   A huge amount of work has gone into this article: congratulations to the nominator on what is an excellent piece of work. I will refrain from giving full comments; I hope the litany of resolved matters above will testify to the skill and patience of the writer in getting this to its current standard.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Jacques-Louis David's Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki from 1781 has been described as one his masterpieces? Source: "David was soon to achieve a total rejection of the Rococo in a trio of masterpieces of 1780-81 executed both before and after his return to Paris from Italy - St Roch, Portrait of Count Potocki, and Belisarius (...)" (Rosenblum, Robert (1973). "David's 'Funeral of Patroclus'". The Burlington Magazine. 115 (846): 575)
  • ALT1: ... that Jacques-Louis David's Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki from 1781 marked the return of equestrian portraiture to European painting of the late 18th century? Source: "By the middle of the eighteenth century, equestrian portraits had become scarce. (...) By the end of the century, the genre returned, marked by David's magnificent portrait of Count Potocki." Sandström, Birgitta (1988). "An Equestrian Portrait of the Duc d'Orléans by Alexander Roslin". Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts. 64 (1): 52.
  • ALT2: ... that that Jacques-Louis David's Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki from 1781 depicts its subject wearing the Order of the White Eagle, Poland's highest order of merit? Source: Brookner, Anita. “Paris.” The Burlington Magazine 100, no. 668 (1958): 404 and Order Orła Białego, Prezydent.pl, Official Website of the President of the Republic of Poland (https://www.prezydent.pl/prezydent/kompetencje/ordery-i-odznaczenia/ordery/order-orla-bialego) (the latter is a source to indicate that it is the highest order)
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Ppt91 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Ppt91: Good article. Personally, alt1 is really the hook that interests me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Onegreatjoke Thanks! I am happy with ALT1. Ppt91^talk 17:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)