Talk:The Lady in White (Bracquemond)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Lady in White (Bracquemond)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 20:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 01:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this :) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave: Thank you for the great review. I plan to address everything in ten hours from now. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave: The dog didn't eat my homework, but the Internet Archive is offline due to an ongoing attack, and many of my sources for this article are on that site. I will do what I can in the interim. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time to change my password I suppose. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's back up for now. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it's back down for a few more days. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A previous painting, Woman in the Garden (1877): If you want to emphasise that this work is a painting, you can refer to as "The 1877 painting..."

• @Rollinginhisgrave: The style I am using is a popular one in US arts and literature. I realize other countries, regions, and disciplines do it differently. I rarely use the "year medium" format, and when I do it's for stylistic reasons. If you think it should be used in this example, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a good case for a stylistic variation. It is redundant to mention that it was an earlier painting, when you've just listed the dates for both, and you're referring to it as a study. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed this the best way I can. If not, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Like the other Impressionists of the time

• If I remove that, it ignores the point I'm making (and that I make later), which is that Bracquemond worked like an Impressionist but was not part of their groups for reasons x, y, and z that I go into. I can also make this point in another way (by briefly generalizing x, y, and z) instead of just saying "like the other Impressionists". That is something that interests me, so I will attempt it. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't get that impression, I just read that you were being coy with using the Impressionist label. Are you referring to it being a transitional work? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good question. Apparently it did represent a transition to Impressionism. I will see what I can say about this. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now, with changes based on original comment. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• at the time, and began WP:CINS

• Fixed, I think. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• little medieval scenes does little refer to the scale of the work (i.e. intimate) or the size of the canvas?

• I thought it unambiguously referred to the size of the canvas, although it's unlikely it was as small as a portrait miniature. I didn't realize someone would read this and think, "oh, they mean intimate". That's unusual to me. Anyway, the best I could confirm was that the painting appeared at the Salon of 1875 under the title "The Reading" or "Reading". All of the sources that would document its size are down, but I have a feeling this info is hard to obtain. The painting is currently in the hands of a private collector. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found it at auction. 42 x 38 cm (16.53 × 14.96 in), so yes, "little". I can use another word to describe it if you like. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the size as a footnote to clear up the ambiguity. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It is remarkable that this information only became available in April 2024. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Formalism (art) would be a good link

• Done. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• would remain → remained WP:WOULDCHUCK

• Done. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The lasting influence of Ingres would later spread to her personal life. this appears unnecessarily mysterious. It might be referring to her husband studying under a student of Ingres? Either way, it can be cut or moved to relevant text.

• Done. Cut. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Marie met her husband Félix Bracquemond, later marrying him in 1869 I don't love the repetition of concepts of husband / marrying.

• Done. Cut husband. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• the two of them both both can be retained, substituting for "the two"

• Done. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• respect, and admiration what are you trying to communicate by drawing a distinction between these?

• Done. Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In First Impressionist Exhibition First is capitalised, but fifth isn't. Is there a reason for this?

• Done. No reason, fixed. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strange for the exhibition of the work to be put in the background to the work.

• Done. Moved to separate section. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 10 rue des Pyramides what is the significance of this location? Can it be disclosed in the text?

• It was the location of the exhibition. Art historians are interested in the location of the exhibitions. For example, if this was a music concert, we would mention where it was held; likewise, this was an art exhibition. In art history, these locations are memorialized as historical locations. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Are these all the artists who presented at the exhibition, or a selection? It is probably too far off-topic (re; GACR 3b to list all the artists who exhibited at the first exhibition the work was probably exhibited at.

• I can clean it up a bit. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason you refer frequently to women artists rather than female artists? Men artists seems inappropriate as a comparison.

• Yes.[1] "Use female as a noun only when you are speaking about animals or writing scientifically. When you are talking about female humans, the favored nouns are woman and women. Likewise, when you’re talking about male humans, the favored nouns are man and men."[2] See also: Using 'Lady,' 'Woman,' and 'Female' to Modify Nouns: "Female connotes a biological category." In terms of adjectives, I should note that my source in the article is titled Women Impressionists.[3] Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did see after that the source referred to "Women Impressionists". It still reads strangely to me, as female would be acting as an adjective rather than a noun, so the Buzzfeed quote is irrelevant. Might fall into the preference category. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there's some debate about it, but I do read a lot of modern art sources and the use of "women artists" tends to be greater than "female artists", IMO. As I said above, there's this idea, whether you agree with it or accept it, that there's a sense of humanity behind the word woman, whereas with female, it's too clinical, too detached, and can be used for non-human animals. There are concerns that using female in this context can also be dehumanizing. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As an organizational matter, the second paragraph of the description, serving as background, should be placed before the preceding sentence it is providing background to. It also would work better in the background section rather than the description section.

• Done for now. I was trying to write about development, not background, although there is some crossover. I've moved it to a new development section. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Most women artists at the time were forced by convention to work in the studio, and were discouraged from working outside the studio by themselves this reads as tautology

• Done. Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• artistic repertoire, focus, and range of subjects It's a bit unclear to me how listing these all individually adds much, there seems to be a lot of crossover.

• Done. Cut down to size. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• indicating as art historian Tamar Garb describes it this attribution reads awkwardly. Is it necessary? If it needs to be attributed that it's transitional, "indicating to art historian..." might work better.

• Done for now. Will return to it later. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• in another work, this time in the

• Done. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason you refer to the Luxembourg Palace as the Palais du Luxembourg? If it is important (or your preference), then a link would be helpful.

• Done. Fixed. The reason is that I was having trouble confirming it was one or the other based on the options in the dab heading. I am assuming here that it is the "Luxembourg Palace". Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This may move too far into preferences, but moving the reference from the lead to the caption would be preferable for WP:V from my read

• Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• in proximity of → close to

• Done. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• showing up → visible (less informal)

• Done. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Bracquemond has strong enough links to France that dmy would be preferable for April 1–30, 1880, especially given you use centimetres to refer to the size of the artwork as a priority to inches.

• Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• observed the influence of landscapes like MOS:SAID

• I think the use of "observed" here is fine, but I am happy to go back to the sources and improve it further. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be good to elaborate the caption for Interior for a Salon, as the relation to the work is made apparent in the other two items listed.

• Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In progress. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I am waiting on this one. I can't find my offline copy of Becker (which is odd, because I was just looking at it), but I do have a print version on its way if the internet archive doesn't come back up. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link the Internet Archive's copy of Moffett

• Will do, and I plan to cleanup the rest of them once IA comes back online and the hacking attempt ends. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [1a] Y
• [1b] Y More information that should be included in the description section, as discussed under [12].

• In progress. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [7a] clock I think this is on a different page, although I am unsure where. Can you point this out?

• Done. Fixed. It's in two places, p. 293 and p. 310. As you correctly pointed out, I had the wrong page number listed. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [7b] Y
• [7c] N A plain reading of the text misses the nuance of the "debut" comment, that it was a debut with oils.

• Done. Tried to fix. Let me know if my change works for you or if you want something more. For reference, this is based on the Arthur d'Echerac quote: "Bracquemont [sic] seems to have given up muddling with clay paste for oils. We congratulate her sincerely. It is a masterful debut..." Viriditas (talk)

• [12] Y More can be drawn from the source for the description section around notable elements of the composition (e.g. orientation of body and head)

• In progress. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [14] N I think there is an important distinction between gave vs willed. I also think it's drawing too much from the source to definitively say it was restored in the 1980s.

• Changed "gave" to "bequeathed", so that should solve that concern. As for the restoration, I changed it to "The painting underwent restoration at some point before 1984." If you can think of a better way to handle this, please make a suggestion. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [15] Y

• Images appropriately captioned / attributed Y
• Stable Y
• Neutral Y
• Broad / summary style clock pending addressing of comments
• No OR / COPYVIO Y (2.9% earwig)

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]