Talk:Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vesuvius Dogg (talk · contribs) 23:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Article under review — give me a few days. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• First off, the article is soundly written and sourced, conforming to all six GA criteria. While relatively short, it covers the topic without wading into the weeds or SYNTH-y art historical appreciations. It is neutral and stable. Although currently lacking an optimal illustrating scan (as creator and nominee Viriditas has noted on the Talk page) I'm currently working to obtain a better and more detailed image, with truer color values, though I don't believe the fact we currently lack an FP-level image should detract from the article's GA promotion. The article is a useful encyclopedic overview of an early, important, and unique Renoir. Most if not all of my quibbles are minor and easily addressed, and while I've made a few copyedits on my own, I recommend the following:

1. The first paragraph in "background" names a few of Renoir's early contemporaries, identifies his friendly circle. But it falls short of saying that Sisley etc. were paysagistes who undoubtedly also influenced Renoir's early outdoor efforts. Isn't that ultimately the purpose of the paragraph, to imply influence? Could a sentence or two drawn from RS be added to this paragraph, so that we establish that influence or impetus to essentially bring Renoir outside and into this style of painting (evolving from the decorative ceramics artist he was before)? Without SYNTH, I think the paragraph would benefit from something to bring it together, something which ultimately connects Les Patineurs to Renoir's circle of influence.

   Agreed. I'll take a look. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

2. Speaking of Les Patineurs ("The Skaters"), French Wikipédia says the title of he painting is sometimes abbreviated to just that. Do we have any supporting evidence which would merit our mentioning that?

   I don't know, but I'll look. That page was created after this one, without sources. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

3. Back to "background": the second paragraph mentions The Cabaret of Mother Anthony as an illustration of Renoir's companionship at the time with other specific painters, mentioned in the first graf, but again, without the context of why or how these influential fellow-travelers played a role in Renoir's output, I'm a little lost as to why they are here in the article at all. (Or why this other painting is mentioned, if it doesn't directly relate thematically to Les Patineurs.) Also, I'm confused here why we've mentioned where Renoir is living, or painting, if we don't know how those locales relate physically to the Bois de Boulogne. How far away is La Grenouillère? An easy day excursion? Why is La Grenouillère in the article at all, unless the subject matter painted there (the middle class enjoying the day spa and famous floating dancing hall, did Renoir also paint that, as Monet did?) sets us up to understand how Renoir arrived at the scene and subject matter of Les Patineurs. Monet is much more famously associated with La Grenouillère. Was Renoir influenced by others, like Monet, who were painting outdoor locales, or crowd scenes? Or did he arrive at that on his own? Again, a line or two of context might also bring this paragraph together; I just want to figure out if Bois de Boulogne was merely convenient for him, or whether he sought that scene out specifically to market himself, perhaps, to the growing middle class clientele he more and more began painting. Also, what does Lise Tréhot have to do with Les Patineurs, and if she is not directly relevant, should she even be mentioned? The rest of the article is much less disjointed than this background section. Perhaps b/c I know a little about the Impressionists' social evolution during these years, I'm being hypercritical. (BTW, I don't know if you have on hand the wonderful T.J. Clark book The Painting of Modern Life, with its terrific discussion of the Impressionists' obsession with banlieues limitrophes, i.e. the intersection of the edge of town with the beginning of country; if I recall, Renoir is mostly left out of Clark's thesis, but it's a really wonderful and provocative book I read 20 years ago which changed the way I see and understand all sorts of work. Find it if you don't already know it...)
4. Les Patineurs is not only one of four completed Renoir snowscapes, it seems to be the only one including a crowd scene. If we can source that, it should also be mentioned.

   I'll look. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

5. Renoir's dislike of cold is mentioned in the lede, of course, but also twice in the body of the article. I'm inclined to pare or delete the last reference in the "Description" section, but also think it could be reworded to note that Renoir DID develop rheumatoid arthritis later in life, which significantly restricted his mobility, and his early dislike of the cold might have anticipated a condition later formally diagnosed. I think this can be finessed (and sourced) without SYNTH. If you like, I could try my hand at it.

   I'll take a look at the dupe and try to fix it. The only way to do it without falling afoul of synth is by placing the RA by itself in a separate sentence after mentioning his dislike of the cold. This could work in the background, but we can't connect the two directly without sources. Then again, he moved to a warmer climate later in life because of the RA, so it's possible to draw attention to that, which indirectly makes the connection in a roundabout way. Is that what you had in mind? Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

   Something along those lines, yes. A separate sentence. I know you're as careful about SYNTH as anyone. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

   In that case, please have at it. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

6. Provenance. Are these the only previous owners, or the only previous owners mentioned by your sources? Am curious which Marquess of Northampton may have bought it from Vollard; most likely this one, the 5th Marquess of Northampton, who was married to a wealthy and cultured Baring heiress, and am guessing his son the 6th Marquess sold it on to Feigen, or perhaps his son after 1978 (to pay estate taxes). Just curious if you have any more info. BTW, I'm cooking up a biography of Richard L. Feigen that's currently in my sandbox but will wikilink it from this article (and many others) once it's in mainspace. Feigen's Smithsonian oral history is a wonderful source, but does not mention this Renoir.

   I believe I have the complete entry at home in a book. I'll update the provenance section as soon as I can. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

   This is all it says: "Ambroise Vollard, Paris; Marquess of Northampton, Warwick; Richard L. Feigen & Co., New York; sale, Sotheby's, London, 26-27 June 1978, no. 717." This is preceded by "From the collection of William L. Koch". Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Then that's as good as we can get. Thanks for checking. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That's all for now. I've tweaked littler things, hope these suggestions are helpful. We're not far from GA, but still potential for improvement. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Although currently lacking an optimal illustrating scan (as creator and nominee Viriditas has noted on the Talk page) I'm currently working to obtain a better and more detailed image, with truer color values
  • Please note that the talk page comment in question was made in regards to the previous image, originally uploaded in 2011 by Oxxo. I replaced that horrible image in March of this year. Check the file history for more info. Of course, a better image is appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I've fiddled myself with the text and addressed, I think, all of my quibbles above. The article, though relatively short, is improved in terms of continuity, and I frankly don't see much more work to be done in that regard. I believe it satisfies all the GA criteria and we are Good To Go. Please let me know if there are any more questions and concerns. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Vesuvius Dogg, this review hasn't been closed properly. (GAN doesn't work like DYK in that regard.) Rather than use a tick here, you need to following the instructions under WP:GANI#Passing if this does indeed meet all of the GA criteria. I'm happy to do those final steps if you'd like, or to answer questions. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
        • BlueMoonset Thank you for letting me know, this could have languished for some time! I think I've done all that's necessary and am hoping the process will be more familiar the next go round. I appreciate your noticing Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Vesuvius Dogg, I made some minor adjustments to the GA template on the article talk page, since it wasn't quite filled in correctly; everything else looks fine. Pretty good for your first GA review! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)