Talk:The Wedding Dance

Rude to whom?

I'm a bit perplexed by the statements about the inappropriateness of the form of dancing in the painting. I have checked out Screech (2005), which supports nothing of this whatsoever, and I don't know where to find Hagen (2005). What does Hagen actually say on this matter? Because I doubt that Flemish peasants in the 16th century considered this type of dancing rude, but would not be at all surprised that the elite had more of a tendency to condemn their rustic subordinates.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

At the time dance was under strict rules, as it says in paragraph two of the Description. It would've been generally been considered rude to others, but not to themselves. --⇒TAP 09:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done, I've referenced the rules bit. Regards, ⇒TAP 10:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

This article appears to be at or about GA-level, so I'm going to do a single pass review starting at the Background section and finishing with the WP:Lead.

• Background -

• References 2 and 3 are books. I don't see why there is a link to google books, the link only gives a thumb-sized view and adds very little information.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The first paragraph is rather vague, it simply states: "It is believed to have been lost for many years, until was found in 1930 in England by William R. Valentiner, the director of the Museum Detroit Institute of Arts at the time." which is slightly expanded by the Lead: "...who took it to back to Michigan.". Obvious questions, not answered by this article are: where did he find it, how did he find it, what condition was it in, how did he manage to take it back to Michigan (e.g. as gift, as a loan, as a purchase)? Note: the Lead does say "owned"

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Details are not abundant, but this source says he picked it up at a sale in London, that's an improvement I guess. i'll add it. I've also found the price he paid for it, but no details on condition. Probably shipped it over.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Ref 4 (Allegretti, Pietro (2003) (in Italian). Brueghel. Milan: Skira. ISBN 0-00-001088-X.), quoted four times, seems to be badly/poorly specified. The isbn tends to indicate that it is a book, if so the relevant page number(s) should be specified. Furthermore, I can't track it down by its isbn, but I did find a details of paperback that appears to correspond approximately to what has been given: No. 22 in a series entitled: "I Classici dell'Arte series"; with authors: Pieter Brueghel, Giovanni Arpino (Contributor), Pietro Allegretti (Editor).
• Perhaps it is a typo, but ref 5 used as a reference for the statement "These three paintings, which share the same wedding theme and elements and were painted in the same period in Bruegel's later years," gives dates of 1566 and ca. 1657.
• I don't see why in both refs 11 and 12 there is a link to google books, the links only give a thumb-sized views and adds no useful information; and does not appear to provide any verification of what is claimed.

I'm removed it as I couldn't find it and a google book search showed up nothing about the information. I've removed the other sources, its 1567, not 1557, now cited in the ref given.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's solved the Problem. I had trouble finding Pietro Allegretti. I looked at Abebooks.it and amazon.it; but I found it (well thumbnails) here [1]. Pyrotec (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In answer to the google book linking. For several reasons. a] The facts are verifiable by searching the book and viewing the snippets and if you search in book for a fact you'll find it. b] Many publications may be public domain in US and not UK, or in the UK it might not be viewable but in the US it might have a generous showcasing of the books, I like to keep it open. c] Readers reading the article who may wish to buy certain books can click the google book link to the book with detail and then click on amazon to purchase. Makes it easier. In all of my articles I link to the books and this system is present in most of my 70 something GAs and most of my FAs and you're the first reviewer who has seen this as problematic!♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It is certainly useful to be able to go to Amazon, etc, and that is one of the advantages of the ISBN link. I didn't find these two searches, based on the link to ref 11 [2] and [3] provided any verification of what was claimed. Undoubtedly, I could go to the book to check the claims, but the book itself is the reference (not the google books page). For some books whole pages are viewable, such as refs 13 and 22, but not for the ones I've commented upon. Pyrotec (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Description and themes -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Should the page number in ref 13, be ix rather than 9? That's where the link goes to and page ix does specifically state "oil on panel", I can't find a comparable comment on page 9.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Ref 18, the Metro Times, has a named author (Rebecca Mazzei) which is not given in the citation and the date appears to 2/8/2006 not June 2, 2006.
• Otherwise OK.

Very well spotted, fixed both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• Generally Compliant. Note: The lead states that the painting is owned by the Detroit Institute of Arts, this is not yet in the body of the article, but I have commented upon this above in my comments on the Background section.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. The article aught to make GA this time round as there are only a few minor problems with citations and, as yet, unanswered questions over finding and ownership etc, in the Background section.

Pyrotec (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on an informative and well illustrated article on this picture. Pyrotec (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That was an improvement, thank you. I think the "rude to many" should be changed to what's specified elsewhere, though. It looks to me like a classic case of the ruling elite attempting to assert their own sense of modesty over the unruly lower classes. With vague language this might be easily perceived as a breech of social norms that were fairly similar in all social classes, something which is more akin to how modern society works (even if norms still vary).

Peter ^Isotalo 10:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)