Talk:Portrait painting in Scotland/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one.

This is a handsome and well-written article, and I will not need to make many comments upon it.

Text

A few phrases might be worth linking or glossing, e.g. "minorities and regencies". "Kilt" and "highland dress" too (where first used in body, I know it's linked in the lead), this is a global encyclopedia. "Laird" should be linked at first use, not a later one.

Done. Probably needs an article on Regents in Scotland.--SabreBD (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Artists form the Low Countries" -> "from".~~

Done--SabreBD (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Vendetta portraits: perhaps it would be best to say where these paintings were intended to be displayed for their dark purposes.~~

The sources do not say, so I would be guessing.--SabreBD (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~How did Cowie reference the history of art in his painting? Is this an oblique mention of Gainsborough's The Blue Boy? If so, please say so, and link it; if not, please explain further.~~

Judging by this [1] its Jamesone's self portrait. I will see if I can find a published version by Hare.--SabreBD (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we still waiting for something here, then? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a published version I cannot find it, so I guess not.--SabreBD (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On this point the article is still obscure; I think "he also referenced the history of art" needs to be clarified; as I wrote, it likely means The Blue Boy. If nobody knows what it means then we must remove it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No point waiting for this; I'm removing it now. Feel free to reinsert if if you discover what it means, but I can't see the point of having obscure statements in an encyclopedia. I suspect I've guessed correctly but that isn't really enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

~~I guess it's reasonably clear but perhaps best to say that the portrait of Bishop Elphinstone is contemporary with his life; might as well say "c. 1505" in the caption.~~

Done--SabreBD (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please add the date to the portrait of Hume.~~

Done--SabreBD (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also add a date for the portrait of Miss Wauchope, and show on Commons why the image is PD in the USA.~~

Done--SabreBD (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why isn't there a Raeburn portrait? There are plenty of fine free images available, and there is space beside the text.~~

I do not think there is room, so it would need to be a replacement for the Hogg portrait.--SabreBD (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, the 19th century section is quite long, so there's easily room for a Raeburn, even if it will be beside the 2nd paragraph. In any case, a <gallery> or two is permitted (Tell it not in Gath, Whisper it not in the streets of Ashkelon) in an article on painting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must be looking at a narrower display than me, but lets hang on and see if it gets bigger when I deal with the Glasgow Boys issue.--SabreBD (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine even at 1920 pixels which I'd have thought much more than enough (it makes lines unreadably long). I've added a nice Raeburn, quite happy if you prefer a different one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that creates sandwiching of the text and not even on a wide display.--SabreBD (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried it at all widths down to almost nothing (the width of the image, in fact), and only the mildest bit of sandwiching occurs, as I expected, since there are 175 words between the two images. For comparison, in a printed novel, a text width of 10 cm is common; the smallest it becomes on screen is 13 cm, and that's only for a couple of lines, nothing to write home about. And on a large screen (60cm width, nominal 28" diagonal) screen there is absolutely no problem with having an image at either side, given the great length of the text between them. If you are genuinely bothered by it, we can move the image down a paragraph, or feel free to use a gallery, as it would be odd not to include a Raeburn in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I see on my laptop (by no means the widest display):

I'm not going to argue (let's use a gallery then), but I can't see the slightest problem with what is illustrated here. How should that trouble anyone, exactly? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the sandwiching problem. I am personally am not a fan of galleries, but if you want to put one in it is most justifiable in an art based article. I should also say I have found some Glasgow Boys pictures that are copyright free, so they could go in there.--SabreBD (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for doing that. Rather than use one big gallery (which I'm not a fan of, either), I'd suggest you add one or two Glasgow Boys pictures, and if the result is too many for that section of text, to add a small gallery for that section only (unless you want to add a few paintings for any other section, which can then have its own gallery). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article would benefit from an example of the Glasgow Boys school (which needs to be wikilinked);clearly the fair use rationale will take some thought, but if a major painting is discussed in the text that should be more than enough. How about James Guthrie's A hind's daughter?

There is nothing on here on the Glasgow Boys, mainly because they largely did landscapes. The New Glasgow boys are all in copyright. I am going to take another look at the original boys, one or two of whom did do portraits, so will come back to this.--SabreBD (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I don't see any issue with a fair-usage image here, provided it is discussed in the article. Even at FA such a thing is not forbidden, though the image could not be used on the front page itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know in theory fair use is allowed, but I gave up on them after the fifth was deleted from an article, despite having a rationale.

So what are we going to do then? We can certainly talk about the Glasgow Boys without an image if that's what we have to do. Or would you like me to write a rationale for an image you'd like to use? Happy to help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~We now need some brief summary of the reception of the Glasgow Boys portraits by the critics, suitably cited.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for this. Unfortunately I cannot find anything that is clearly about the portraits.--SabreBD (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. If they're under-reported, that's how it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm slightly flabbergasted that we can't bluelink Alexander Moffat, a glaring hole in the Wiki web, but not a fault of this article. I think it might be best to redlink him, all the same.~~

Me too. I may get around to creating and article at some point.--SabreBD (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a brief article for Sandy Moffat, amazed nobody got there before me in the past umpteen years. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

~~Why aren't Allan Ramsey and Andrew Geddes linked to their EB1911 articles? There is a template. And why are they marked "retrieved 7 May 2012"? That's not necessary.~~

You will have to help me out with this one. Not sure why the 1911 version is useful when the link is to the current version. I also do not know where the template can be found.--SabreBD (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not to worry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Geddes, Andrew" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. seems to work fine, though the other one seems to be missing on WikiSource, and isn't that the same version you are using? Chiswick Chap (talk)

~~Is "Edn" meant to have a capital E or not? And is it meant to end with a "." or not? Choose one.~~

Done--SabreBD (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Overall, a very nice article, close to passing already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I'll be working through this over the weekend.--SabreBD (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the comments are all cleared I'm satisfied this now meets the criteria: good work. I've created stubs for several of the named artists so the coverage of the area is at least nominally rather better than it was, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]