Talk:Regulus (Turner)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: CitrusHemlock (talk · contribs) 22:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 00:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Some images need tags modified. Image of painting and derivative zoom can be improved by uploading the NYT version.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Feedback

Lead

Regulus is an oil painting by English artist J. M. W. Turner, first painted in 1828 and overpainted during a varnishing day in 1837...The work was kept in Turner's gallery until 1837, when it was overpainted during a varnishing day at the British Institution.

While it is important to avoid saying the same thing twice in any section, it's more important to avoid this in the lead section, where we want to use the limited space judiciously and efficiently. I would avoid saying that the painting was overpainted and varnished twice in the lead, preferably by removing the first instance in the first sentence and keeping the second. Is it important to the first sentence in the lead to mention that it was overpainted and varnished a decade later? If you think it is, then perhaps you can word that in a way to avoid saying the same thing twice.

It depicts the story of the Roman consul Marcus Atilius Regulus, who was captured by Carthaginian forces and eventually executed after being blinded by the Sun. The scene is a landscape of either Rome or Carthage, with ships and buildings surrounding the ocean. The painting is dominated by the blinding white Sun in the centre.

Two things: first, our bio on Regulus says this probably isn't true, it's just a heroic embellishment, so you may want to reword this here and elsewhere in that context; second, you don't need to repeat blinded by the Sun and blinding white Sun twice; try to come up with variations. The NYT coverage of the painting (linked in the last section below) refers to "the story of a Roman general blinded by sunlight", so that's one example of contextualizing the embellishment and varying the use of "Sun".

Regulus was a controversial work, leading to it being stabbed in 1863 by a homeless man named Walter Stephenson.

Having read the lead (and the body) several times, it's not entirely clear to me as a reader why the painting was controversial for its time. Also, should the lead perhaps mention that he was charged, tried, and found guilty? Just wondering, as the body goes into some detail about the trial.

Background

Consider moving File:Benjamin West (1738-1820) - The Departure of Regulus - RCIN 405416 - Royal Collection.jpg and the {{quote box}} farther down, perhaps starting after the second paragraph ("While not common, Regulus served as a recognisable...) Right now, you've got it hanging over the first paragraph in the section, and that leaves it showing up just below the infobox image. I find that if you give the text and images more room to breathe, it makes the layout look better.
During the war he was captured by Carthaginian forces, before being sent to Rome to negotiate a prisoner exchange. Upon arrival, he instructed the Romans to refuse any prisoner exchange, knowing that he would be executed upon returning to Carthage.

Think in terms of economy of words. You repeat the "prisoner exchange" twice here. Mention it in the first sentence, but in the second instance try to rephrase it in a different way (or do it a different way, it doesn't matter): "During the war he was captured by Carthaginian forces, before being sent to Rome to negotiate a prisoner exchange. Upon arrival, he instructed the Romans to refuse any transfer of captives, knowing that he would be executed upon returning to Carthage." Just an example of how to mix it up a bit.

Accounts by ancient historians tend to agree that Regulus was tortured by having his eyelids removed or sewn open, before being forced to stare at the Sun, leading to blindness. Various historians add details, including Gaius Sempronius Tuditanus, who stated that Regulus died of sleep deprivation, while others claimed that he was placed in a barrel of sharpened nails.

As I said above in the lead section, this ignores what we know today. The Oxford Classical Dictionary (2012), cited in the bio of Regulus, says the story of his death by "ancient historians" is a "legend" and "invented". The entry goes on to explain why it's a myth and gives brief examples of how the ancient accounts are wrong. You obviously don't need to go into any of that, but you do need to reframe or add additional information here, as your current article portrays this as a real event. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While not common, Regulus served as a recognisable subject for many painters during Turner's life. Notable examples include Salvator Rosa's Death of Regulus and Benjamin West's The Departure of Regulus.

This is confusingly worded ("during Turner's life") as Turner lived from 1775–1851, and Rosa's Death of Regulus (c. 1650–1652) and West's The Departure of Regulus (1769) were made before he was born.

These works, centred on the figure of Regulus, depict him as a brave, patriotic hero and promote ideas of aristocratic masculinity.

This is an interesting coincidence. I was just writing about notions related to aristocratic masculinity just last week in the article The Hangover. I am curious if these ideas are similar or different than the ones I was writing about. Any chance you can note these in the body or in the footnote?

he had learned certain elements through the Roman poet Horace. James Thompson, a poet who significantly influenced Turner's writing, alluded to Regulus in his poetry series The Seasons. However, the most descriptive source Turner likely had on Regulus was Oliver Goldsmith's Roman History

I realize styles differ, but I like to know dates in regards to names and works. I understand this might not be a common practice in your neck of the words, as I've had other editors tell me they don't this in their country. Personally, I wanted to see Horace (65–8 BC), James Thompson (1700–1748), The Seasons (1730), and Roman History (1772). This might not be your style, and that's fine, but I tend to look for these things as a reader. Others may not.

History

Doing...

Turner began to paint Regulus during his 1828 visit to Rome. Turner began work on about nine other paintings...

It sometimes helps to switch things up a bit. Instead of repeating "Turner...Turner" at the start of both sentences, you can add a bit of variation in different ways. Easiest way is to change the second instance to "He", but there are other ways of doing it.
Why was Turner visiting Rome?

Of these four, Regulus was likely the first to be completed, Turner quipping that it was made to stop the "gabbling" of his peers interested in his activities.

I've read this sentence five times, and each time it made me slow down and stop at "Turner quipping". There must be a better way to write this that doesn't make the reader slow down and roll over a large speed bump.
I would split it into two sentences and get rid of the "quipping" and rephrase it.

Due to difficulties in sourcing frames for the paintings

I've read this many times now, and still want to know why it was so difficult to find frames.

the audience levied significant critiques at the paintings, focusing on defects in the paintings, and perceived resemblances to the works of Claude Lorrain.

I wouldn't repeat paintings twice here. There's any number of ways to do it, but I'll give an example: "the audience levied significant critiques at the paintings, focusing on its perceived defects and resemblance to the works of Claude Lorrain". Just an example.
Might want to make it clear to the reader that Lorrain is known as "Claude" for further uses in the article. You can do this any number of ways, but perhaps the easiest is to just write "...resemblances to the works of Claude Lorrain (known as 'Claude')" or something to that effect.

While he hoped they would arrive early enough to be shown in the 1829 exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts, they arrived three months after the Royal Academy opened

Opinions may differ, but I wouldn't repeat Royal Academy twice here. I would write: "While he hoped they would arrive early enough to be shown in the 1829 exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts, they arrived three months after it opened".

Turner entered Regulus for the event, an unusual choice given that Turner seemed to view the British Institution as a place to sell unwanted paintings, and Turner had already put significant effort into repairing the canvas.

I would rewrite this. "Turner entered Regulus for the event, an unusual choice considering his view of the British Institution as a place to sell unwanted paintings, particularly given the significant effort he had already dedicated to repairing the canvas."

It is possible that he wanted to display the painting to demonstrate how the principles of Claude could be modernised.

Can you figure out another way to say this? I think it's an important point, but it gets lost in this paraphrase. One way to approach it is to focus on details or specifics.

he hoped to use larger paintings to grab the attention of an increased crowd, a task for which the relatively small Regulus was unsuited.

This sentence is a bit confusing, since the painting is classified as medium-sized. I think what you are trying to say is that it is small relative to his larger work, but the painting itself is not small. I think it might be possible to rephrase this simply by saying "a task for which the medium-sized Regulus was unsuited" as it has the same meaning but eliminates the ambiguity.

Regulus is the only case which has either a written or visual description.

Am I misreading this? Why "either"? I don't get it.

which he described in a letter to Director of the National Portrait Gallery George Scharf 45 years later, in 1882. The letter was then published by Scharf's successor Lionel Cust, who published it in the 1895 edition of The Magazine of Art.

Interesting provenance of the letter, but wouldn't that kind of detail be best for a footnote, rather than the body? Also, since this is clearly analysis, shouldn't this be in the analysis section instead of history?

In Fearnley's painting, Regulus literally serves as a light source which casts shadows through the painting.

Nice detail.

Dennin claimed that when interrogated, "he replied, 'I was very much excited. The misty state of the picture and the dislike I had for the man made me do it.

The article doesn't explain who or what Stephenson disliked. Did Stephenson dislike Turner? Why? Or did Stephenson dislike Regulus? This isn't clear to me.

Reception and criticism

Pending

Analysis

Doing...

I was surprised that you didn't have a single section or subsection devoted to the influence of Claude Lorrain, instead choosing to disperse it into the larger body. The National Gallery published an entire exhibition book about the influence in 2012 (written by Ian Warrell I think?): Turner Inspired: In the Light of Claude. My only concern here is that by dispersing it in the body instead of focusing directly on the influence, it comes off as secondary or tertiary, rather than the lifelong, primary influence that it actually was. Nothing actionable at the moment but it might be something to consider thinking about.

Notes

Pending

References

Pending

Bibliography

Pending

Spot-checks

Pending

Images

Regarding the main image of the painting, the NYT has a much better image on their site[1][2] than the one currently in use. It's not clear to me if they licensed it from Tate or if they took a photo of it themselves, but it's superior to the image you're currently using, more so if you are using a derivative for the close-up, which is pretty poor.

I uploaded a new version of the painting if you want to use it: File:Regulus_Turner_1828.jpg As you can see, it's night and day when it comes to the detail.
I also uploaded a new, but wider version of the cropped image, with the subject centered, if you want to use it: File:Turner - Regulus (Regulus descending stairs 2).jpg There's a lot more detail, as you can see, and the wider crop gives it a bit more context.

File:Turner - Regulus, 1828, reworked 1837, N00519.jpg needs {{PD-US-expired}}
File:Thomas fearnley turner fernisserer.jpg needs {{PD-US-expired}}
Consider using WP:ALTTEXT to help the seeing-impaired navigate the article