Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marriage License/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2023 [1].

Marriage License

edit
Nominator(s): Guerillero Parlez Moi

Marriage License is a painting that pushes on the standard assumptions about the limits of art and who it is for. You are more likely to see it on the walls of a midwestern grandmother's house rather than at MOMA. The man or woman on the street would call this painting art without skipping a beat, but art historians and philosophers of art would be more likely to disagree. To add a curve ball, MAD Magazine, yes that MAD Magazine, published a parody of the painting in 2004 that accurately predicted how the winds would shift on LGBTQ rights in American Culture.

Thank you to Ceoil, Premeditated Chaos and P-Makoto for your reviews. I think that the article now meets the standards to be an FA. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 07:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude

edit

Support from Vami

edit

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make comments after other peoples' comments are reviewed so I don't go about reinventing the wheel. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quid pro quo' for Frye Frye's FAC. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this version. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 45.5 by 42.5 inches (116 cm × 108 cm) work [...] Clashes with the rest of the sentence. I recommend combining it with the sentence describing its present-day location. It makes sense to me to dispense with the space it occupies in meatspace if nothing more need be said about it in the lead.
    Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The painting is in the collection of the Norman Rockwell Museum and has been a part of three major exhibitions in 1955, 1972, and 1999. Why not cut "three" here?
    Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick google shows me that MAD has at several times used parodies of Norman Rockwell's paintings to make comments about contemporary American society and politics. See this website for examples. Thus worth reworking the article to mention these covers, or at least not make the 2004 parody of this article as the only time MAD has done this.
    I can't find any sourcing that speaks to the other works in this series. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you revise the sentence about the 2004 version in the lead nonetheless? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He set up a studio where he continued to paint and provide illustrations for magazine covers and yearly Boy Scout calendars. "and continued" would suffice in place of "where he continued". This sentence is also missing a citation.
    done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The models for these were often drawn from the local community near where he lived. Big redundancy here. Suggest "were often drawn from his environs."
Now that's worse, but just "drawn from the local community" should be clear enough. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading complete. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

edit

Dibsing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely to see the degree of expansion from GA to now. It was a very complete article already but now it's got some extra heft. I really find myself with minimal griping here.

That's it! Really, as I said, minimal griping mostly at this point due to the excellent work from other reviewers leaving little for me to notice and comment on. As always, happy to discuss any of my suggestions. (As a side note, if you have the interest I'd love to see you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Widows of Culloden/archive1). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therapyisgood

edit

Comments

SC

edit
Commission and models
Reception
  • "Popular-art historian": I've never seen this hyphenated before, and I'm guessing you're trying to avoid him looking like an art historian who is popular? "Popular culture historian" gets away from the issue with the blue link, particularly as Finch comments on pop culture, rather than just pop art (or "Historian of popular art/culture" would also suffice – as long as the hyphen is removed)
    You are correct with what the hyphen is trying to do. I went with the link. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deborah Solomon, Dave Ferman of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram": " Deborah Solomon and Dave Ferman of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram" – a comma shouldn't replace the conjunction
    The three people are "Deborah Solomon, Dave Ferman of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and philosopher of art Marcia Muelder Eaton". I will think about how to replace it. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha, OK. I'm not sure why not just "Deborah Solomon and Dave Ferman of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and philosopher of art Marcia Muelder Eaton": doesn't that work as well - or am I missing something? - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy

Overall it feels a bit 'thin', both in terms of scope and depth.

  • I would like to see details of the medium, size, current location (including any history of the provenance), themes, time it took to paint, examination of the techniques used (if there was anything 'special' he did), details of major exhibitions in which it was shown, etc
  • Christopher Finch's Norman Rockwell's America has some good description of the work and discusses (albeit briefly) the theme of young love, and there seems to be a lack of academic studies on the piece. I'm not an expert by any means, so don't know the literature around Rockwell or his works, but the article seems to be very thin on these sources.
    • I got it on Archive.org and I will see what I can find. I think I skipped over Finch's other works after looking at one due to thinking that they all had roughly the same material.

      If you can forgive me for editorializing, I have some thoughts on this subject after working on this project for the last few months. Art history has a Rockwell problem where they see his paintings as not real art and therefore not worthy of study. I wish Eaton was writing today and therefore took a more intersectional approach because she spends paragraphs actively dodging the reason home economics is more comfortable with Rockwell than art history: class. I will do more digging, but I feel like I have hit a dead end. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • No problem. I'm not an art expert even in the widest sense, let alone when considering Rockwell. There is a tiny bit in The Faith of America by Fred Bauer (he says Rockwell "struggled" for 33 days to finish the painting) which should be considered for inclusion. If the scholars and academics have overlooked Rockwell and there isn't much in-depth analysis, then that's fine (and more fool them). - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this all help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’ve been watching the addition of the new material - it’s in much better shape now. As there are a couple of people reviewing, I’ll wait until they’re done (particularly the art experts Ceoil and Johnbod) and if they’re happy with the art side, I’ll go over the text again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going over this again, following the extensive restructure. It's looking very good now, with the additional information filling out the various bits I would expect to read about.

Lead
Description
Commission and models
Process
Provenance

That's all from me on this second run-through. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, driving by

edit
  • For an FA, you need more than "is a painting" as regards technique. Also, the size and current owner and location. All in the first lead para. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I will add an infobox, much to my dislike for that information. Looking over a random sample of FAs, none of them include all of that in the first paragraph. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's absolutely no need to include an infobox, and these basic pieces of info should still be in the lead text anyway (almost certainly, someone else will add one unless you add a note asking people not to). You're claiming there are painting FAs that don't include the size, technique, location and ownership in the lead? Examples please. It's not like the lead is already long - it's only 3 paras. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Johnbod/SchroCat: Can you please take another look? I fleshed things out a bit more and I hope it alleviates your concerns -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better, certainly. If you are going to do painting FACs you should check out and follow MOS:ART:
      • "The lead section on individual works of art should give at least the following information (in roughly this order): Name(s)/title(s) of work, artist, date, type and materials, subject, nation or city of origin, present location." and "Measurements should always be given for a work that is the article subject, but are not usually needed in captions".
        I find this to be an incredible amount of micromanagement compared to the rest of the MOS. But here are where each of these pieces of information can be found
        • Name(s)/title(s) of work: "Marriage License"
        • artist: "by [...] Norman Rockwell"
        • date: "created for the cover of the June 11, 1955 edition of The Saturday Evening Post"
        • type and materials: "is an oil painting"
        • subject: "depicts a young man and woman filling out a marriage license application at a government building in front of a bored-looking clerk"
        • nation or city of origin: "American illustrator"
        • present location: "in the collection of the Norman Rockwell Museum"
        The measurements have been moved to the Description --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "For works belonging to permanent public collections, avoid "... currently resides in", "is currently in the Louvre", "is on display at", "is located in", "is in the collection of", and similar phrases." -re "The painting is currently in the collection of the Norman Rockwell Museum ..."
        Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The exhibitions should all be together I think, not some in the lead and others below (move them all down)
        There are only three exhibitions and they are all mentioned in the provenance --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "Composition" section is only partly about the Composition (visual arts), and would be better called "Description".
        Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "As a well-known Rockwell painting, Marriage License has been used as a muse for other works" - usually only people are "muses".
        Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you say anything about the process by which the painting was significantly reduced in size for the reproduction, and the printing process used?
        Included --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I addressed all of these. The sketch got a note --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't! Please check over. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went point by point through your comments. The lack of a school/movent mostly comes from the sources. To call it Regionalism (art) would be original research. The captions follow MOS:ART --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all sorted, except the measurements should be in the lead per the MOS (I'd settle for in the lead pic caption). Very many people never read beyond the lead. I don't know why you seem to think I asked for a "school" - I didn't, and it certainly shouldn't be Regionalism (art). Rockwell's paintings like this are very clearly a continuation of Victorian sentimental domestic genre painting, which is why the critical establishment is reluctant to take them seriously, but don't let's get into that. I'm also very dubious about the alleged influence from Vermeer (could Rockwell ever have seen any street backgrounds by him, except in murky b w repro - I don't think so) but you appear to have sources for that. Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I added the measurements to the second sentence of the leade. I ended up not liking how long the caption got with both english and metric units. The school was pulled from my relook through MOS:ART's guidance for leads. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 10:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. My comments dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil (Support)

edit

Overall very good, esp in last few days

  • As said on the talk, its hard to understand the tonal contrast between the couple and official from the very low resolution lead image. I would go for for two crops (the couple and your man) and FU claims - this would make understanding far, far more clear on a scan if for eg it gets to main page, which it obviously will. Especially, even clicking through, its not possible with the current img to see how the "wearied look on his face contrasts starkly with the excited couple"
  • I don't know what this means, or at least it begs a lot of questions: Starting in the 1930s, Rockwell created his paintings from 50 to 100 reference photos.
  • Have rephrased the reception somewhat - I think the sources were saying he was influenced by Vermeer, rather than comparable to Vermeer (which would be ridiculous given his -unfair imo- reputation amongst highbrow critics as a sentimental hack). Do "Solomon and Ferman compare the paintings positively" really?
  • I see you revered the templated converting cm to inches. Why
  • can you put dates after The Letterman, Little Girl Observing Lovers on a Train, Before the Date, and The University Club
  • Peggy Lahart, a nurse at the Riggs center, was approached to pose for a painting depicting a bride-to-be - Rockwell approached
  • In the catalog for the 1972 retrospective exhibition of Rockwell's works - Rockwell's 1972 retrospective
  • philosopher of art Marcia Muelder Eaton - never heard of such a discipline (outside of aesthetics), and dodgy given she is a red link.
  • Butting in outside my section to note that plenty of female academics are redlinks and shouldn't be; it's not fair to hold that against them. She's a bit too old for much web presence, but appears to have reasonable academic qualifications and has published multiple books on the philosophy of aesthetics. I certainly wouldn't call her work "dodgy." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, stricken, but it had nothing to do with female, more "philosopher of art"; "philosopher of aesthetics" is better; I am annoying myself with being cautious of definitions of with high art, and taste better includes lovey objects such as this. Ceoil (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the work since last comments; especially the addition of the crop, am a Support. Interesting article, on an artist had not given thought to before, so thanks v. much for that. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocking off tomorrow afternoon to finish working on the comments above -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 11:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • P/PP error in FNs 3, 41.
  • Suggest expanding the two-letter state abbreviations to full state names as these are not well understood by non-US readers.
    • Not so sure about this, and it goes against the usual FA standard. Atlanta, GA (as used in this article) for eg seems fine. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's certainly optional; I suggested it because I've been asked to change these in my own source lists. I've been in the US for long enough that I know them all now, but I could understand an Australian not knowing which state MN or NE referred to. The ones used here are FL, PA, MA, and TX, which are probably among the best-known (though MA could be mistaken for a couple of others). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is fair enough. My concern is based on a fear of being called out on very difficult to spell state names such as Connecticut or Massachusetts, although I realise I'm unusually poor and that kind of stuff. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I spelled out the state names, but kept DC. District of Columbia would confuse people more --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive link for FN1 doesn't work for me -- it just brings up the terms-of-use dialog.
  • The archive link for FN2 doesn't work for me, though since newspapers.com is already an archive I don't think you need it.
  • The title of FN 39 should be "Rockwell Exhibit Stirs Memories".
  • I had a think about whether FNs 1 and 16 are high enough quality for what they're citing here. In both cases I think they're OK, but it seems certain that they were just relying on whatever other resources they had, rather than researching the answers themselves. If you can replace any of these cites with material from the scholarly sources you have that would be best, but I think they're OK as they are, since the newspapers are themselves edited and fact-checked.
    This is an excellent point, great to see verbalised, and should be on the standard checklist for source reviews (although it places a large research burden on reviewers). Very often I start with broad survey articles and books and then mine their footnotes. Ceoil (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have only ever seen the size in the collection's catalog, but the use of it for the Provenance is rather minor. It could be removed and change the reader's understanding very little. Ryan 1983 is one of the best sources for the creation. Some of it can be replaced, but he has much more detail. The modes being from stockbridge can be easily swapped. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see these and I will try to get to them tomorrow. I had to finish up a GA review this evening -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have replied -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Looks good now, and I agree about DC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Marriage_License/archive1&oldid=1144685553"