Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Kenneth Clark/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kenneth Clark

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

a.k.a Lord Clark of Civilisation. I've worked on this article on and off for seven years and am thinking about putting it up for GAN or FAC. Suggestions for improving it will be gratefully received, as will views on whether FAC is a reasonable aspiration or whether just to aim at GA. Tim riley talk 12:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Will pop in shortly, this year or next. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As usual you sit on the fence with the serial comma, using it and not using it without any obvious pattern.
  • "In 1932 Clark and his wife Jane commissioned without a brief a dinner service": I think this could be put a bit more clearly
Agreed - it's a very odd single-sentence paragraph. Was it inserted by the author of the Dinner Service article to make a link? And what does, "without a brief" mean? The source in that article has a long section titled "There was no brief", but it's really saying that Grant and Bell had a completely free hand in the the design/decoration of the service. If it's needed at all, perhaps as a footnote? KJP1 (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not my doing and I concur that it isn't needed. Blitzed. Tim riley talk 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Belatedly checked the Stourton and Secrest biographies and this commission doesn't rate a mention in their aggregate 788 pages, and no call to drag it into our 5,600-word article. Tim riley talk 13:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1936 he gave the Ryerson Lectures..." I'm delighted, as a fan of the semi colon, to see two of them employed here, but think it may raise eyebrows and comment from some.

Done to the start of the Postwar section; more to follow. Reads very smoothly at the moment, and I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be popped into FAC once the review is done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Continuing:[reply]

  • "centuries – all men – Clark had neglected women,[82] and presented": I stumbled over this a little and had to re-read the sentence a couple of times before it became clear
Emailed with explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Received and acted on, thank you. Refs now together at end of sentence. Tim riley talk 10:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'His modus operandi was dubbed "the great man approach",[82]': I think this may need a little clarification
  • 'Among his books is "the best introduction': I think inline attribution would be beneficial here.
  • The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo should be "The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo" with speech marks.

That's my lot. Minor quibbles and nothing more; please ping me when you take this to FAC, which you certainly should. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1

[edit]
Clark's most inspired purchase

Also reserving a spot. Once this extraordinary omission is corrected, I can't see any reason why the destination shouldn't be FAC. KJP1 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Tim - just a few content suggestions from me:[reply]

  • Great Bookcase - I definitely think this deserves a mention. Not, as you may suspect, to shoehorn Burges in! but because I think it represents an important instance of Clark as collector. As Matthew Winterbottom says, it was a "particularly farsighted and pioneering acquisition", made by Clark when no other museum director would conceivably have made that decision, [1]. Charlotte Ribeyrol, in her 2023 book devoted entirely to the bookcase, calls it a "crucial acquisition" made when Clark was well aware that the bookcase was "not acceptable to present taste". It would fit nicely in the second paragraph of Early career. An alternative placing, which I think it may merit, is in the second para. of Reputation, when you consider his current status as a collector. As a aside, it must be one of the best artistic buys of the 20th century; £50 in 1933, millions now! If you'd like, I'd be very happy to draft a sentence or two - it wouldn't need more.
The absence of a photo of the bookcase is a very grave omission! KJP1 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wartime - The removal of the NPG's pictures to North Wales and their storage at Manod was preceded by a less-successful attempt to store them in country houses, including taking many to Penrhyn Castle, [2]. This didn't go well, leading Sir Martin Davies to complain bitterly about Lord Penrhyn's drunken escapades. You may think this is a bit tangential to Clark, and you may be right, but I think it could make a nice footnote. Again, happy to draft, if you wish.
No, you're right, too tangential. KJP1 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gothic Revival - covered in Early years, I wonder if it also warrants a mention in the Reputation section? I appreciate he was an art historian, not an architectural historian, but his early, insistent, and continued, demand that Victorian art/architecture be considered seriously, even if not enjoyed!, was important. This article, [3], talks of how "Clark's writing on Victorian architecture and perennial commitment to John Ruskin's output and significance would constitute a major contribution" to the revival of the reputation of Victorian art, and there are loads of others. As an aside, that article also throws an interesting light on Clark's relationship with Charles Bell, Bell writing, "I shall never really like him, or his wife".
And now done. Tim riley talk 12:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my, rather Victorian-focused, thoughts. Just shout if you'd like me to draft a few lines for consideration. I look forward to seeing it at FAC. KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the omission of the image of the bookcase, they all look good. Incidentally, I see that Clark's entry in James Stevens Curl's Oxford Dictionary of Architecture says: "Apart from books on art, his early volume on the 'Gothic Revival' (a work which greatly helped the appreciation of Victorian architecture) may prove to have been his most influential creation, changing perceptions and taste". Curl also writes; "Although he [Clark] claimed Ruskin was a major influence on his thought, he delivered his own messages with lucidity, elegance and aplomb, never wallowing in purple prose or exaggeration (faults painfully evident in Ruskin's work)". There may be something there you could use. KJP1 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Purely by chance, I came across J. G. Links's description of Clark in Venice for Pleasure, "the greatest connoisseur of his time". But then, Links wasn't a critic by training so his view may count for less, although he was no mean connoisseur himself. KJP1 (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Links calls KC "perhaps the greatest connoisseur of his day", which isn't quite the unqualified encomium one would be seeking if quoting in a Reputation section. But the Curl quote is excellent and I've added it. Tim riley talk 14:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24

[edit]

Have only skimmed, but a great read from what I can see. These are mostly random nitpicks:

  • You rightly describe him as first and foremost an art historian, but the lead doesn't back this up: there's no remark on which art and what artists he was publishing on. I would say Italian Renaissance art is probably his most prominent speciality; maybe a sentence could be inserted along the lines of "Although his research spanned a wide variety of topics, he is closely associated with Italian Renaissance art, particularly that of Leonardo da Vinci"
  • I would be hesitent to call Berenson a dealer. Full-fledged delears, such as Joseph Duveen, 1st Baron Duveen, turned to him for an authoriative voice as an art historian
  • Do you think Roger Fry is worth lead mention? In my mind, the combination of Ruskin, Berenson and Fry paint a more complete picture of his primary influences
  • Probably the infobox occupations should match the lead's first sentence
  • On my screen, the images of Ruskin and the young Clark painting are creating a WP:Sandwich. I'd suggest one be removed
    • On a similar note, I wonder why the 1911 image is used after the 1918 one? The backwards chronology may be a bit suprising to readers
  • Leda and the Swan (Leonardo) may be a better link for the Leda drawing
  • I have no doubt that Giorgone's work was "was inadequately represented in the gallery at the time", but it's a rather odd thing to say. There are so few paintings reliability attributed to Giorgone that I'd say essentially every gallery on earth has an inadequate representation of him!
    • Well, point taken, but I think in KC's day there were rather more supposed Giorgiones about than there are now. The National Gallery's tally is now a massive two (out of, I understand, six anywhere in the world) which is a 100% increase over the figure in Clark's day, but he thought he'd found four additional ones. Tim riley talk 16:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have an article for the Alberti publication (De pictura), but I'm not sure if there's a convenient way to link it
  • It might be nice to link to the full painting, The Resurrection in the image caption
  • To my eye, all of his major publications are discussed in the text, except The Nude (1956). I see its mentioned in the reputations section, but perhaps it warrents further attention
  • Those are my thoughts—impressive writing as usual. – Aza24 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Aza24. Once again you've done to me what you did at the FAC for Schumann – making me uneasily conscious that you know a helluva lot more about the subject than I do – but the article is much the better for your suggestions and I'm most grateful. Tim riley talk 17:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
  • Lead
  • After the war, and three years as Slade Professor of Fine Art at Oxford,... The comma after "war" can be omitted. Is it necessary?
It is necessary to open the subordinate phrase that follows and is closed with the necessary second comma. Tim riley talk 09:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linked from lead as well as in main text. Tim riley talk 09:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Life and Career:
  • Can we mention "His father" instead of "Kenneth Clark senior" in some of the places for a more concise version after it has been mentioned that the latter was his father?
I do not think "Clark's father" rather than "Clark senior" is an improvement. Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life and career

  • The appointment was announced in The London Gazette in July 1934;[36] Clark held the post for the next ten years.[37] Can "the next ten years" be replaced with "the next decade"?
Why?
  • Can The Burlington Magazine, looking back at Clark's time at the gallery, be replaced with The Burlington Magazine, reflecting on Clark's tenure at the gallery, ...
Why? Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • He saw them in 1937 in the possession of a dealer in Vienna,[45] and against the united advice of his professional staff he persuaded the trustees to buy them. Can "united advice" be replaced with "unanimous advice"?
No. United and unanimous are not synonyms. Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley In British English, "unanimous advice" is the correct term to indicate that all members of a group agree on a particular course of action. "United advice" is not a standard expression in this context. The term "unanimous" specifically refers to complete agreement among all parties involved. Therefore, the sentence should read: "He saw them in 1937 in the possession of a dealer in Vienna, and against the unanimous advice of his professional staff, he persuaded the trustees to buy them."
Reference-[5] MSincccc (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how, pray, do you know the opposition was unanimous? The source (ODNB) specifically says "united". Tim riley talk 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then. MSincccc (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley In British English, both "looking back at" and "reflecting on" are used to describe considering past events. However, "reflecting on" often implies a deeper, more thoughtful analysis, while "looking back at" can suggest a more general recollection. Replacing "looking back at" with "reflecting on" in the sentence "The Burlington Magazine, looking back at Clark's time at the gallery..." would convey a more contemplative tone, indicating a thorough examination of his tenure. The Cambridge Dictionary defines "reflecting" as "thinking carefully and deeply about something," suggesting a more thoughtful consideration. Therefore, "reflecting on" enhances the depth and formality of writing. MSincccc (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note your opinion. Tim riley talk 17:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wartime

  • The caption of the image could be slightly tweaked:

Myra Hess, the inspiration and mainstay of the National Gallery's wartime concerts

Why? Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley Was she not the only inspiration? MSincccc (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main one. So what? The definite article is not needed in any case. Tim riley talk 17:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting:admininstrator, 1954-1957

  • It had been set up by the Conservative government to introduce ITV, commercial television, funded by advertising, as a rival to the British Broadcasting Corporation. Could the meaning of this sentence be made clearer?
How? Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting: ITV, 1957–1966

  • Revised sentence -By the time he presented a programme about Picasso in 1960, Clark had further honed his presentational skills and came across as relaxed as well as authoritative.[73]
Not an improvement, me judice. Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian could be linked here.
Done. Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civilisation, 1966-1969

  • Clark was attracted by the suggestion, but at first declined to commit himself. "At first" can be replaced with "initially" here.
Why? Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley In British English, both "at first" and "initially" are grammatically correct and convey the same meaning. However, "initially" is considered more formal and is often preferred in academic or professional contexts. The Cambridge Grammar of English notes that "initially" is more formal than "first" or "at first" when listing points. Additionally, Merriam-Webster defines "initially" as "at the beginning," indicating its interchangeable use with "at first." Therefore, using "initially" instead of "at first" can enhance the formality and precision of your writing. MSincccc (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it is longer and starchier than the plain "at first" I do not regard it as an improvement. Tim riley talk 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Later years: 1970-1983

  • In 1976, Clark returned to the BBC, presenting five programmes about Rembrandt. The comma after "1976" can be omitted here as you have done the same for the rest of the article's prose.
See current edition of Plain Words, p. 249. Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • During his last ten years he wrote thirteen books. "Last ten years" can be replaced with "last decade".
Why? Tim riley talk 15:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley "Last ten years" is a more general expression, while "last decade" conveys the same meaning with a focus on the specific 10-year period. Using "decade" can also streamline the sentence, making it more succinct. MSincccc (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I’d agree with Tim on this: it’s not an improvement and arguing the point isn’t the best way to conduct a PR. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, I fear MSincccc has yet to understand that a reviewer's job is not to say how s/he would have written the article but rather to point out errors, omissions and infelicities and suggest emendations. Tim riley talk 17:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley I am a "he". I was merely offering suggestions and pointing out omissions; it was up to you whether to implement them or not. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley and @SchroCat What about this comment above? I am willing to learn from the two of you if it helps me to become a better reviewer and write higher quality articles. But I do understand the fact that in the end it is upto the author(s) concerned to make the revisions and that a reviewer can only suggest omissions, errors, and improvements (which can be rejected). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may like to study the suggestions from all three of the previous reviewers. They do not say "I'd phrase it this way and so should you", but point out, most helpfully, omissions, ambiguities, confusing phrasing and factual inaccuracies. That is helpful. Calling for "initially" rather than "at first" and similar points of personal preference in drafting is not. Tim riley talk 17:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat and @Tim riley I don't want to argue with "experienced editors". As to how to conduct a PR, I will ensure that any such points will arise in future. But still why not use "decade" instead of "ten years"? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because is it not, in the opinion of the main author and at least one of the adult reviewers an improvement. Tim riley talk 17:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Could you please provide an explanation so that I can use it whenever there is a confusion regarding whether "ten years" or "decade" should be used in the future. Any one of you will do, @SchroCat, @Tim riley. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either is always acceptable, except when referring to a defined 10-year period such as the 1920s, 1960s etc, where decade is the generally preferred usage. Tim riley talk 17:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a possibility of misunderstanding with "last decade" that there isn't with "last ten years". The "last ten year" of Clark's life were 1973-1983. The "last decade" can either be taken as the same, or be referring to the 1980s, given it was the last decade in which he lived. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave comments for the remaining sections later. The article has been a great read until now. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs
I do not see how "the classicist Mary Beard said KC was a lifelong Labour voter" would help the reader. Had she been writing about his comments on ancient Greece and Rome it would have been relevant. Tim riley talk 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley Sorry, but I had overlooked the second part of the sentence. As you point out now, it is irrelevant to add "The classicist..." here. That's all I have got for the time being. Hopefully, my comments would be of more use to you in the future. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley Sorry, but I had overlooked the second part of the sentence. As you point out now, it is irrelevant to add "The classicist..." here. Hopefully, my comments would be of more use to you in the future. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for the time being, @Tim riley. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kenneth_Clark/archive1&oldid=1266844379"