Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Princesse de Broglie/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2018 [1].

The Princesse de Broglie

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Painting by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres completed in 1853. Joséphine-Éléonore-Marie-Pauline de Galard de Brassac de Béar, known as Pauline, was highly intelligent and a noted beauty, but was extremely shy, and died young. The portrait is one of the artist's finest, and contains elements of both high fashion and deep pathos. Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Louis_XIII_style_Ovolo_frame_(for_Ingres's_Portrait_of_the_Princesse_de_Broglie)_MET_86AG_288R4_p.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Same with File:Ingres_Portrait_of_the_Princesse_de_Broglie_Coat_of_Arms.jpg

File:Duc_Albert_de_Broglie_par_E.Appert.JPEG needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PD tag added, but not sure what "a tag for the original work" means. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current tag reflects the copyright of the photographer; I'm looking for a tag reflecting the copyright of the artist in each case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise

Hi Ceoil. I really enjoyed this article. I'm close to supporting. Here are a few comments.

"He approached Ingres around 1850 to undertake on the portrait." Not sure if this wording is due to regional differences, but I would say "to undertake the portrait".
"The painting's central motif was established in the earliest studies, when her oval face, arched eyebrows, and habit of folding her arms with one stuffed into the opposing sleeve was already established." Should this be "were already established" as it is three things? Also, it's a minor point, but if there is a way to avoid repeating "established", that would be preferable.
"Her left wrist contains a bracelet of roped pearls, the bracelet on her right is made of red enameled and diamond set gold links." Two independent clauses separated by a comma.
"Her neck is unusually elongated, and her arms seem boneless or dislocated, especially her left forearm appears to be under modeled and lacking in musculature." I think "especially" doesn't act as a subordinating conjunction, so in this sentence as well, there are two independent clauses separated by a comma.
"It contains a number of pentimenti, including the laying of the contours for her hair and yellow chair." I think "it" refers to the painting, but these are separated by a sentence about her facial features, so it's less clear than would be ideal.
"The horizontal bands are about 2.5 cm wide, and are composed from yellow paint on either side of her head near the earrings, and seem to have been used to plot the positioning of the moldings." After the first clause, there are two clauses of the same type beginning with "and", making the sentence feel run-on. Moisejp (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moise, these are very helpful. Will work through. Ceoil (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moise, have these done, but can you check as I am not very technical re prose. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil. Thank you, my concerns above are all addressed. Your prose is very readable and has an especially nice flow to it. I hesitate to mention another issue I noticed while rereading the article just now, as it may require you to rework prose in the lead that personally I think is a quite nice, interesting opening to the article, but I'm concerned it may not satisfy WP:Lead. Some of the facts in the lead are not mentioned in the main narrative, and some of the main points in the article are not in the lead, including mention of the preparatory studies, extended details about the description of the painting, and a brief summary of the painting's reception. One idea is perhaps you could restate or move some of the lead's interesting details (such as Pauline's extended name, Albert's liking of the Comtesse d'Haussonville portrait, and most of the details in the lead's second and third paragraphs) into the main text, and add to the lead a sentence or two summarizing each of the sections in the article? Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, will do. Ceoil (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update is that have worked on the lead to better reflect the article body. Now need to do the reverse. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moise, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, have you finished your changes in both directions? Just let me know, I'll be happy to take a look, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, yes, has been extensively reworked. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm working my way though it. I was hoping to finish tonight but doesn't look like I'm quite going to be able to. Just a few brief comments so far:

"The eventual painting is considered one of Ingres' finest later-period portraits of women, along with the Comtesse d'Haussonville, Portrait of Baronne de Rothschild and Madame Moitessier." Does this need its citation in the lead? I haven't had a chance to see whether the point is mentioned in the main text, but it seems to me like the citation could go in the main text rather than the lead.
Done Ceoil (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It is assumed that he left so few as some were lost or destroyed": The meaning of this doesn't seem clear to me. We find out later there are five or six surviving sketches and an equal number that are lost. But I can't quite catch the relationship between us knowing some were lost/destroyed and it being assumed that's why he left so few?
I trimmed this as was confused also! Ceoil (talk)
"The painting is composed from grey, white, blue and yellow and gold hues." I'm not sure how to parse the end of this. Should it be "grey, white, blue, yellow and gold"? Or do one or both of the instances of "and" designate sets of colours? Moisejp (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ceoil (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, and I am happy to support. I made some edits, see if they work for you. One minor final suggestion you could consider is that "The majority of critics noted Ingres' attention to detail in describing her clothes, accessories and decor, and saw an artist at the height of his creativity, with a few invoking the precision of van Eyck" kind of repeats the earlier "The costume and decor are painted with a supreme precision, crispness and realism that art historians have compared to Jan van Eyck." The nuance is slightly different but there is some overlap. An idea for your consideration. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support. Agree with suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Ewulp

Also close to supporting. I think there's a problem with citation #21 for the date of the frame; the Met page description is apparently for a replacement frame created in the US ca.1950-1960. Ewulp (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ewulp, have clarified this, but may expand somewhat on this interesting point during the week. I do like that frame, I have to say. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tinterow was under the impression that the current frame "seems to be the original", but the Met must have dug deeper since 1999, and they now give the provenance as "Robert Lehman (made 1950-60 for Ingres's Portrait of the Princesse de Broglie (1975.1.186), around the time the painting was purchased by Robert Lehman (1958))." Ewulp (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems woth adding, will look into it. Ceoil (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ewulp, have updated a few areas, and hoping to add a sect on the frame itself. Researching. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that its very unusual that, on wiki, we are allowed to show the frame for something like this, we should have a section and have been gathering sources. Bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ewulp, section on the frame now developed. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Ewulp (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about Albert considering himself too ugly for a double portrait puzzles me & should be sourced. Was this just banter, or had Ingres seriously proposed to paint his portrait and Albert demurred? That would seem uncharacteristic; after 1845 Ingres' only male portraits were self-portraits and the little monochrome profile of Jérôme Napoléon Bonaparte. Ewulp (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was banter made many years later - no offer to Ingres was made, I suspect Albert was gently praising Pauline's memory by comparing her appearance to his own (I know how he feels, being plug ugly with a very, beloved, intelligent and fancy wife). Thats the whole point of the article; I cant imagine how a loss like that could be borne. I appear to have forgotten to add the source when adding last weekend, actually there was more in the body which was reffed but I seem to have lost while working from text files...hold on. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ewulp, Ceoil, are we done here or was there more to come from either of you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to support pending a fix for this last difficulty. I'd excise the line in question, which could mislead the reader (as Ingres rarely painted pendant portraits and no such thing was evidently contemplated here). Alternatively, the line could be rewritten to clarify that it was a sentiment expressed years later, & a source added. Ewulp (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ewulp, have been caught up, will get to this today....Ceoil (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ewulp, have removed altogether. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's there: Support for FA. Ewulp (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for a highly attractive topic, with "high fashion and deep pathos" ;) - As usual, I'll comment while reading. I confess that I find the title unusual, with it's mix of English and I-don't-know-what-else, and no open connection to her name? Curious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"As with all of Ingres' female portraits, her body seems to lack a solid bone structure." This comes as a surprise when still talking about the sitter and her relationships.
Ok, have repositioned, but mindful that the lead/body balance needs workl see also above...working. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
will keep looking, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Pauline was aged 28 at the time of its completion." Can we please also know for how long she was married, or at least the date of the wedding, to do the math?
Done Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about first saying that she was intelligent, then shy?
o dear. Done Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about first letting her have sons, then get sick and die, rather than the sons suddenly mentioned after her death?
Think I will move the 5 sons bit to the commission section. Ceoil (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we avoid "different poses" and "various poses" in close succession?
Done Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will say later if I miss things in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commission

I think I'd expect the details about her bio and character here, and only a summary of that in the lead.
Chronology? (first they dine in 1850, then they get married in 1845, for example.)
"Albert" - should be speak about a prime minister by first name only?
Not sure; I commonly use first names when discussing people with the same family name. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also not sure, just asking, - different names in a family often mean father and sons, and I see no problem with the sons, when young. A prime minister seems a bit different, to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sketches would be better a para below, and think the lead might clarify that the "nude" means professional models.
Switches to a gallery for different reasons Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any photo of Pauline? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... studies

"the princess" vs. "the Princess"? vs. "the Princesse" - still curious, and no answer yet. Was Princess her title? (I seriously have no idea about such matters.)
Princess is the French title of the painting, and all sources add the "e" at the end. "the princess" needs to be fixed. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note she wasnt a princess, but he styled himself as a prince. Ceoil (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the online sources, the Met Museum has the long title (which should probably appear somewhere, but not as the article title), and another has Portrait of the Princesse de Broglie, which we can shorten, but why not to Princesse de Broglie, - this "the" only makes sense in the context "of the", no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
quote: that he was "killing [my] eyes on the ...

For my taste, the [my] is hard to understand, - and the later [his second wife] even harder, because it's not clear that it's the painter's (wasn't he speaking in the first person?), not the prime minister's.

Yes, good spot - Have gone with [his] in the first instance. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a bit of this attitude ("make me suffer") in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dont understand this Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to read in the lead that it seems not to have been his favourite project, rather a burden ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Ceoil (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description

I miss that she is standing behind the chair. - Yes, I see it, but a blind reader wouldn't.
Dont understand this Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Someone blind would not know from the description that she stands behind a chair, leaning on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again: yes, we read it, in the quote in reception, "... armchair placed in front of her", but that's late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
hair colour? and is that really "tightly"?
Obv black and yes Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rue de l’Université, Paris [fr]?
ok fine, but its a 404 for me Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
my bad: Rue de l’Université, Paris [fr] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For me, a nightdress is something to go to bed with, the other evening gown or evening dress. Learning.
ok grand. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Fine, but again: a bit to the lead please.

General: I am no friend of section header displaced by left images (twice right now), but things may change by rearranged text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Gerda, these are nearly all very good suggestions. A few will take me time. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the changes. Will look again, but not right now, - some things have to come before, and it's very nice weather. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was a beautiful day out. Two general comments: "alt" texts for all images are desirable, and no fixed image sizes, to make user preferences work. I like the changes so far! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you had a nice day, its been drissly here, but its been a lovely October as October's go. The feedback so far has been great from all, am almost there....Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will add alt text, but for a short article fixed image sizes may render as huge and be an issue (I experimented on a few screens and they swamped everything). Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we seem to agree about "no fixed image size"? Anyway, I like your changes, trust that you will add the alts, and support. Which doesn't mean that I won't return for minor comments ;) - Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda. I havnt forgotten you o/s points, all of which have greatly helped. Ceoil (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ALT text now added. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

A nice read - queries below...

~~The latter part of the Provenance section would go better in the Reception - actually it might make sense to combine the two sections and thread material chronologically.~~

~~Err "acute" means short term - which doesn't follow with "throughout her life"....~~

Hi Cas, to me acute means short-term in medical rather than common usage, but see the gap and have rephrased. My hunch came from spending the first 15 years of my adult life listening to the Smiths:) [2] re Provenance, yes right and have re-giged. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok all good now, support on comprehensiveness and prose...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that no spot-checks are needed here: It looks like each ref has the minimum information needed. Is Naef, Hans. "Eighteen Portrait Drawings by Ingres". Master Drawings, volume 4, no. 3, 1966 a reliable source? I am wondering the same about "Harris, Beth; Zucker, Steven. "Ingres, Princesse de Broglie". Khan Academy, October 2009. Retrieved 23 September 2017" as our article Khan Academy raises some eyebrows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, have added link to the JSTOR article written by Hans Naef. Harris and Zucker are art historians and founders of Smarthistory, and both are very familiar to me, and wiki in general - there was a partnership at one stage, I believe lead by smallbones, so comfortable with including. Its the funding of Kahn rather than its output that is questioned, and indeed raises eye brows. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.