Talk:Plácido Zuloaga

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 Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Fonthill Casket, from the Spanish Metalwork Khalili Collection

• ... that the Fonthill Casket (pictured), created by Plácido Zuloaga, is decorated elaborately on the inside as well as the outside? Lavin, James D. (1997). The art and tradition of the Zuloagas : Spanish damascene from the Khalili Collection. Oxford: Khalili Family Trust in association with the Victoria and Albert Museum. ISBN 1-874780-10-2. OCLC 37560664. p.57 "In the case of the cassone, [...] one must wonder at the care taken to ornament its elaborate interior." p.71 "The entire interior is decorated in white painted enamel with black ornament repeating in silhouette the baroque style of the exterior panels" Also p.71 "This enormous iron casket was thus undoubtedly made by Plácido Zuloaga, apparently as his first commission for Alfred Morrison." Also p.71 "Since the cassone has long been known as the 'Fonthill Casket', it must originally have been among the furnishings of Fonthill Manor[.]"
• ALT1 ... that the works of Plácido Zuloaga, such as the Fonthill Casket (pictured), took a team of between eight and twelve specialized artisans to produce due to their intricacy? Lavin, James D. (1997). The art and tradition of the Zuloagas : Spanish damascene from the Khalili Collection. p. 63. Oxford: Khalili Family Trust in association with the Victoria and Albert Museum. ISBN 1-874780-10-2. OCLC 37560664. "We are told that by 1890, after thirty years of working in Eibar, Plácido had 'formed more than two hundred artists in damascening'. At any one time during the 1870s and 1880s the number of artists in the various specialities required to produce a major object ranged between eight and a dozen." Also P. 63 "it would have been impossible for Plácido to produce within a reasonable time any of his monumental commissions, such as the Fonthill Casket or Prim's tomb, without the participation of the teams of specialists he employed."

Casket by Plácido Zuloaga from the Spanish Metalwork Khalili Collection

• ALT2 ... that Plácido Zuloaga trained more than two hundred artists to make damascened art works (example pictured)?

• Reviewed: Lucien Sève

Moved to mainspace by MartinPoulter (talk). Self-nominated at 10:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC).

• Comment I have added an alternate hook which I think is more interesting. An elaborately decorated casket isn't really too out of the ordinary, so I am concerned the main hook may not elicit the necessary interest in a general audience. Please let me know if you like it MartinPoulter. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Psiĥedelisto: Thanks for taking a look and providing this alternative. I'll be interested to see what a reviewer says about either hook. I agree that a casket being elaborately decorated isn't surprising in itself, but I thought it being decorated on the inside was interesting, as usually for a cassone there would be no point in doing this, and it says something about Zuloaga's approach to metalwork. I would prefer that whatever hook is used mention the Khalili Collections since they have the leading collection of extant Zuloaga works and since their GLAM partnership helped to get the article created. Just to be clear: I'm the Wikimedian In Residence for the Khalili Collections. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• @MartinPoulter: Khalili could probably be just as easily be mentioned in ALT1, but what do you think of putting it in the thumbnail caption instead to keep things short, as I've done? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 09:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Psiĥedelisto: That's great. I only ask that it be pluralised: because there are eight distinct collections, the name in use (and title of the WP article) is Khalili Collections rather than Collection. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• @MartinPoulter: I understand that there are eight collections, that's why I specified the one it was from. I see no need to pluralize it. The link works. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 15:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Psiĥedelisto: Yes, the link works, but it's a redirect. I thought the done thing was to avoid linking to redirects unless there might in future be an article at the redirected location? Looking at the MOS, I don't see that advised, so I could well be wrong. Thanks for your work on this. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• @MartinPoulter: In general linking to redirects is allowed and even encouraged even if an article is never expected to exist there if it makes the wikitext simpler, see MOS:NOPIPE. However, you reminded me that there's an exception to this rule, MOS:DYKPIPE, so I added the needed pipe to avoid the redirect. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 16:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I've put a cropped version in, as it makes the details pop a bit more. The uncropped version is what's in the article, but AFAIK it's fine because it's the same image sans some black space on the edges. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The list of exhibitions is lifted, word for word, from nasserdkhalili.com/the-eight-collections-2. The source is CC-BY-SA 4.0, and is cited, so not an issue.

I don't really think that the image pops well. Certainly not as well as some of the other photos that you've used in other nominations. File:Khalili Collection Spanish Damascened Metalwork zul109.jpg is much more stunning at 160px. Alas that's not the work detailed in the article.

I'm concerned that the article is largely based off of a single source, but that's outside the remit of DYK review.
Good to go. Either hook is fine. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I also think the image doesn't stand out well at thumbnail size, but the hooks don't make sense without it. Would you like to propose another hook angle and/or clearer images? Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I've added ALT2 with the image suggested by The Squirrel Conspiracy. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, the second image looks even darker than the first. Yoninah (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't look dark to me, but YMMV. Maybe we interpret "clearer" differently. Is it a matter of the image needing to be lightened? Is there an image in the article that counts as clear for you? MartinPoulter (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: you know, the first image has grown on me. Can we run it with ALT2? Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Happy with that, using the first image and its given caption. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Restoring tick per The Squirrel Conspiracy's review. Yoninah (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Plácido Zuloaga/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 15:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Prose

Lede

• Can we not cite in the body rather than the lede? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Cites purged from lede. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• inlaying - might need a link/more easier word. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Now wikilinked. I struggled to think of a synonym. "laid in"? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Lede seems a bit short. Not anything about his life, death, or his most notable works. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Longer now with more about career, works and death, and some excessive detail removed. Also, I realised that saying he "perfected" the techniques, although the language used by the reliable source, is evaluative, so rephrased. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

General

• Plácido was born in 1834 in Madrid to Eusebio and Antonia Zuloaga - define his name and birthdate here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

And shorten his name in the lede? Or keep long form of name in both lede and body? MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No, his full name (including middle names) should be in the lede. First usage in body should have first and last name, (and if you have a source for the birthdate, state where/when he was born.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I get it now. Done MartinPoulter (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Even if you link the lede, you need to also link the first time in the body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Done MartinPoulter (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Eibar - needs a link. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Added MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Actually you did, but after you say what it is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Link moved MartinPoulter (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• In 1867 - he's 33... Is it still fair to say "early life"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point- section broken up. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• when the queen - spell out her name. There are lots of queens. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Done MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• South Kensington - link, where is this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Expanded and w'linked. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• From 1860 to 1890, Zuloaga trained more than 200 artists in damascening - 1890 makes him 56! Not really early life. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Now in "career" section. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Many of Zuloaga's works are so intricate they could not feasibly be made by one person; he led a team of specialist artisans who carried out his designs, each object being produced by eight to twelve individuals. - Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've rewritten that paragraph: does the "In order to create his most ambitious works..." phrasing work better? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• "a triumph of skilled workmanship" - Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Now attributed. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Zuloaga would have subcontracted out the preparation of the wood and veneer Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Does this really need more than the existing citation? If a master metalworker were also assumed to be a master woodworker, that would be a leap that needed justifying. I want to convey to the reader why this table is regarded as a PZ artwork but without implying that PZ was superhuman and did everything involved in making it. The mundane answer is that the Khalili Collections catalogue, written by James D. Lavin (no enwiki article) makes the inference: "Its construction would have required the subcontracting of specialists for the woodwork and veneer" MartinPoulter (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• • • I just didn't want it to say "would have", the current wording is fine." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• y Zuloaga include a revolver[18] and snuff boxes, caskets, and containers of various dimensions.[ - grammar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Now a simple list. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• When there is a quote, you need to say who said it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

All quotes now attributed (one is from an anonymous article, but I've stated the source in the text and given a fuller citation. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Why is the personal life so high up? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved down after Recognition. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• interred - not a word I've heard of. Simplify Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Simplified. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Could exhibitions be prose-ified, the bullets aren't really necessary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Done MartinPoulter (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to pass. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Lee Vilenski:. This has been an incredibly helpful process and made concrete improvements to this article. I see you're based in Somerset: if you go to an in-person wiki meetup (when that sort of thing happens again) it'll be interesting to meet you. Thanks for your time! MartinPoulter (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)