Talk:Mona Lisa/Slashdot

This discussion was copied from the Village pump.

The Encylopedia that Slashdot Built Awards

A periodic award given to pairs of articles that typify this acusation. This month we have two art related articles:

1. . Mona Lisa (often described as the most famous work in art history) - our article is 2255 words (excluding links) with two pictures.
2. . OS-tan a (small internet phenomenon on Futaba Channel) we give 2706 words and 19 pictures. Admitedly, this article describes a number of individual works.

This is a Slashdot Ratio of 1.2, not a startlingly high ratio, but an interesting reflection on our art history coverage! Mark Richards 17:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mark, could it be that some art pages suffer because some wikipedians are being overly cautious? I pondered adding a second pic to Michelangelo's David, because the current illustration does not illustrate scale/proportion, although it is a truly superb photo. I have a pic I took myself that does illustrate the very large scale of the work, because there are people in it, but it's of slightly lower quality. Be(ing) Bold around here lately has caused little except hassles, so I decided to give it a miss. I can just imagine having to justify having two similar-ish pics in the same article, or, to justify using only my photo because it is the better illustration. Oh my. Moriori 21:12, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Please, I think you should be bold on this! I think a famous artwork like that could do with two pictures! Mark Richards 21:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MOD PARENT UP. (Just kidding.) Seriously, I agree that we need more info in our Mona Lisa article. However, Moriori has some very good points. To expand on them, from my POV: First, legally acquiring images for GFDL use is often a difficult task, especially for works of art. Second, Mona Lisa is a developing article — it's grown by 6kb (from 11kb) just the past three weeks [1]! If you want an unbiased selection, pick articles that don't have dozens of edits within the past few weeks. Third, we will never need 19 different pictures of the Mona Lisa. That would be redundantly redundant.

In conclusion: the "text-to-pictures" ratio is an invalid metric for judging how "Slashdotty" the Wikipedia is, especially for art. (Disclaimer: I'm among the contributors to the Mona Lisa article, so take that for what you will.) Okay, I've spent enough time defending our articles; I'm off to resume actually improving them. :-) • Benc • 02:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I must confess that when I read "Mona Lisa...2255 words (excluding links) with two pictures," my thought was "wow! what's the second picture!?" And upon checking, I was most amused. I suggest that anyone who hasn't looked at the Mona Lisa article do so now.

p.s. NAACP is still wending its way through the Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week process after being nominated for a previous "Encylopedia that Slashdot Built" award. —Stormie 03:12, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Suggested images

My first reaction was 'Surely you can't find more than one relevant picture for the Mona Lisa'. However, on further thought you probably could do more. Here are some ideas;

• A photograph showing the tight knot of tourists standing in front on the painting trying to squint through the glass - also showing painting in gallery context done by User:Montrealais
• An oblique photograph of the frame illustrating the tripple layered bullet-proof glass
• A close up showing surface crakling of the paint
• A detail showing the painting techniques, such as sfumato
• A photograph of the back showing the condition of the wood and any other identifying marks
• A shot of one of the towns where the painting was stored during WW I and WW II
• Marcel Duchamp's corrupted version, L. H. O. O. Q.
• A historical photograph showing the acid damage in 1956, or its restoration
• A historical photograph showing the painting on tour or being transported
• A historical photograph of Vincenzo Peruggia, who once stole the painting (at Vincenzo Peruggia)
• One of the X-rays of the painting showing the underpainting (another X-ray was being taken this year).
• The merchandising shot could be replaced with a photo showing a wider range of merchandise

Of course the real problem, as User:Benc says, is that many of these picture would be very difficult to obtain under GFDL. I'm not sure what the current situation in the Louvre is, but many galleries don't allow photography. It is also worth noting that few of the pictures in the OS-tan article have source, attribution or licensing information. -- Solipsist

Great ideas! I'm copying this entire discussion to Talk:Mona Lisa/Slashdot. • Benc • 22:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think we have enough pictures now. I included one of Duchamp's parody and added a photo of Vincenzo Peruggia to the relative article. Karl Stas 13:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)