Talk:Frederick Charles Cooper

Problems

I started to go through this draft (on 9 October) but stopped when the assertion that More than fifties [sic] of Cooper's original drawings from this expedition are now part of the British Museum's collection (my emphasis) was referenced to a source that talks of a number of watercolour drawings of the excavations and local topography in northern Iraq and north-east Syria (ditto). What's the source for the claim that there are more than fifty (if this was meant)?

I now distrust the referencing. But I lack the time and effort to check each cited source. You, Divnanoc, had better check these.

Let's look at the last paragraph I reached before I gave up: ...offering invaluable insight into the excavations. His work not only recorded the finds in minute detail but also conveyed the awe-inspiring scale and grandeur of the ancient Assyrian civilization. Who says that the insight was or is invaluable, that the detail is minute, that the scale was or is awe-inspiring, or that the drawings convey this or that, and where do they say it?

Also, please be a lot more careful with the Cite templates. I cleared up several messes but my patience is limited.

That said, the draft looks promising. I look forward to seeing it in improved shape. -- Hoary (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for the corrections. Please find below the explanations:

(i) "...but stopped when the assertion that More than fifties [sic] of Cooper's original drawings from this expedition are now part of the British Museum's collection (my emphasis) was referenced to a source that talks of a number of watercolour drawings of the excavations and local topography in northern Iraq and north-east Syria (ditto). What's the source for the claim that there are more than fifty (if this was meant)?"

Please kindly check the website https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG177486 more attentively. There is a target "Related objects". You will find there 55 paper works of the artist stored in the Museum`s collection. There used to be 57 papers (when I did my research inside), but I have no idea where the other 2 have disappeared to.

(ii) "Let's look at the last paragraph I reached before I gave up: ...offering invaluable insight into the excavations. His work not only recorded the finds in minute detail but also conveyed the awe-inspiring scale and grandeur of the ancient Assyrian civilization. Who says that the insight was or is invaluable, that the detail is minute, that the scale was or is awe-inspiring, or that the drawings convey this or that, and where do they say it?"

I bet that I met the definition somewhere in like "Living London" or other similar publishing, but I have no adequate resource for citation right now. My words are indirectly confirmed by "Rethinking Layard 1817-2017" and H.L. Mallalieu that were ascribed Cooper as the only unique painter for Layard`s expedition. I can delete the paragraph since it's really not super important.

Regards, Divnanoc (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Divnanoc, point (i): You are entirely right; I was quite wrong. I have of course removed the "Failed verification" flag. Sorry! ¶ Point (ii) Rethinking Layard (and particularly the chapter by Curtis within it) is of course particularly convenient because anyone can access it and any editor can search through it. In your place I'd "search" (i.e. get my browser to search) through it. Of course the words don't have to be the same. Thus looking for the concept MINUTE DETAIL (or something similar to it), I'd start with minute, and if nothing came up would continue with tiny, minuscule, meticulous, precise, exact, painstaking.... ¶ Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)