Talk:Langlois Bridge at Arles

Width and perrow

I will not bother about width and perrow Modernist, but Euclid would have said that 4 * 140 = 560 pixels, and that gives a fixed pixel size and less flexible display. But I think you have realized that adding both width, height and perrow would have even produced more restrictive geometry, and thrown off proportion. But anyway, who cares. History2007 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Perrow 4 simply indicates that the total images per line will be 4, as you left it those lines would have extended ad infinitum. Until recently the gallery line default was 4; it was changed but to the detriment of smaller computers. The normal default size is app 110px - 120px - in this case the images will either be 140px wide or 140 px high, which are still compatible with smaller units but are better to see because they are slightly larger than 120px...Modernist (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I will not bother to argue a trivial issue of geometry, but I do not agree. You will have to change resolution on your computer and use different settings not build galleries for ever. That is the last I will say about this. History2007 (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Modernist, thanks for providing the explanation and examples of the ways the gallery would look with different settings, I will likely return to the history page in the future. I didn't know what perrow meant, I just copied the settings from another page that looked nice.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Carole - keep in mind that any images larger than 140px should generally be perrow 3 in galleries because on smaller screens 4 images - say at 200px can't all be seen...Modernist (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I think I have to change some pages. When I get done here (almost done editing), I'll hunt around for them. Thanks again, Modernist!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

History of the bridge

The article currently states: "The bridge was either dismantled in 1926[8] or bombed during World War II. Due to pressure from local citizens, the Langlois Bridge has been reconstructed[9] or restored[10] and named "Pont Van-Gogh." It is located on the southern side of Arles." It seemed strange to me that these vague options were left open so I have looked into some French sources. From what I can gather, the name of the original bridge was probably Réginel (not Réginelle), the original drawbridge was replaced by a reinforced concrete structure in 1930 and this, along with all the other bridges along the canal except for the one at Fos, was demolished by the Germans in 1944. It was the Fos brige which was dismatled in 1959 with a view to relocating it on the site of the Langlois Bridge. As a result of structural difficulties, the Fos bridge was finally reconstructed and restored at Montcalde Lock several kilometers away from the orginal site. There are French sources for this here and here. Many more details are given in NOTES SUR LE CANAL D'ARLES À BOUC which states in particular:

"Quant au vénérable pont de Langlois (... ou de l'Anglais, selon la roquettière habitude), on en conserva provisoirement les deux culées par mesure d'économie : les murs étaient solides et leur démolition pouvait attendre - mais on se dépêcha de démonter le pont pour en récupérer le bois, les ferrailles, les chaînes et les boulons, en vue de « réutilisation ultérieure » (par ci, par là). On aurait peut-être pu alors conserver l'ouvrage entier, en souvenir de Van Gogh... mais le pauvre Vincent n'était pas encore tellement à la mode - et personne ne protesta puisque de toute façon « son pont » était condamné à disparaître lors de l'élargissement et l'approfondissement du canal."

I do not have the Silverman text but it seems to me the French sources are likely to be more accurate. Any comments or should I simply summarize the above in the article? - Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That's great resolution of the information, thanks so much! No, don't have any comments.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll update the article tomorrow unless someone else (Modernist??) gets there first. - Ipigott (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

For several reasons my brain is like mush right now to piece the information together, but I can try later or tomorrow myself. I really appreciate the work you went through to clarify the information! And, I see that Modernist and you both have made copy edits, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I just discovered the work that was done on this article and the Langlois Bridge article. Thank you and congratulations! olivier (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Langlois Bridge at Arles (Van Gogh series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: three found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead fails to be a concise summary of the article, please read WP:LEAD. It also contains unsupported statements of opinion and fact, viz: He employs a creative use of color to bring light, reflection and intensity to the work. Van Gogh enjoyed making this group of paintings and drawings because the scenery reminded him of his homeland in the Netherlands.

   I corrected one spelling mistake.[2]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Just as canals were a feature of the Dutch landscape, they were also important in southern France. New canals were opened up as they were needed to expand the network of canals. In the first half of the 19th century, a canal was built from Arles to Bouc, located on the Mediterranean Sea. Locks and bridges were built, too, to manage water and road traffic. needs citation.

   ref #9[3] appears to be broken, no detail at this URL

   ref #19[4] is an image - the interpretation is WP:Original research.

   ref #24[5] states: Painting, Oil on Canvas, Arles: March, 1888, Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Europe which does not support the statement: The painting is currently at the Wallraf-Richartz Museum in Cologne, Germany.

   I assume good faith for off line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Some evidence of oR as mentioned above

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Correctly licensed, captioned and tagged.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

   OK, all seems to be in order now,, thanks for the fixes, passing as GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Updates made to the article. On my first attempt I tried to integrate with the section above, but I messed up the numbering scheme, so I hope it's ok that I put my comments here. If not, I can reformat to fit a standard process for gathering updates/comments:

• #1) Lead Regarding: The lead fails to be a concise summary of the article, please read WP:LEAD. It also contains unsupported statements of opinion and fact, viz: He employs a creative use of color to bring light, reflection and intensity to the work.

 Done it was actually a summary of a number of sentences (Japanese prints, contracting colors, impasto technique). I broke it down into more sentences to get a bit more specific about each of the points, does that help?

• #1) Lead continued, Regarding: Van Gogh enjoyed making this group of paintings and drawings because the scenery reminded him of his homeland in the Netherlands.

 Done Added more refs about reminder to his homeland in the body of the article. I reworded the sentence in the lead, too.

• #2 Regarding: "Just as canals were a feature of the Dutch landscape, they were also important in southern France. New canals were opened up as they were needed to expand the network of canals. In the first half of the 19th century, a canal was built from Arles to Bouc, located on the Mediterranean Sea. Locks and bridges were built, too, to manage water and road traffic. needs citation.

 Done removed first sentence, not really needed. Added refs that were missing.

• #2 Regarding:ref #9[3] appears to be broken, no detail at this URL

 Done fixed link.

• #2 Regarding:ref #19[4] is an image - the interpretation is WP:Original research.

 Done added refs that were missing.

• #2 Regarding:ref #24[5] states: Painting, Oil on Canvas, Arles: March, 1888, Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Europe which does not support the statement: The painting is currently at the Wallraf-Richartz Museum in Cologne, Germany.

 Done the reference had the painting info for another painting, fixed ref.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

updated last item--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is the most famous painting in this series given almost minor prominence?

The painting everyone knows and loves is F397 (the text calls it The Langlois Bridge at Arles with Women Washing although Kroller-Muller simply exhibit it as 'Bridge at Arles'). Yet it was consigned almost to "other versions" status in the article and for good measure assigned a washed-out image that entirely failed to capture its vibrancy. I've replaced the image with the one in the Commons that comes from Kroller-Muller itself and made a short edit to indicate its importance. Would anyone mind if I were to replace the lead image with it and did some judicous reordering of the text?

And incidentally one can make much the same remarks about F400, the VGM version, the next most important bridge consigned once virtually again to minor status. It's bizarre.

I really would like to edit this article but I have to say I find it distinctly disconcerting on a quick read and I'm not sure I'm prepared to contribute on a playing field like this. There are a number of other issues that immediately strike the eye and then there's the question of what I have to say frankly strikes me as bordering on copyright violation. I accept that direct quotation in moderation is acceptable (but it soon becomes very tedious indeed to read) and also that indirect quoitation acknowledging the source is also acceptable, but I recognise many passages here which are essentially unsourced copy of other authors' material.

But actually my beef about the article more subtle. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the masses. Turning to an article about a populat painting like this one expects a pleasnat pot-pourri of various contributions. But you don't see this at all ... what to say kind about it? It frankly reads like not a particularly outstanding term paper, tl;dr in spades, and even the images seem to have been chosen to be as dull as possible.

It needs to be dumbed right down and sexed right up.

Well I'll leave it a while and come back, but it is a distincly disconcerting introduction to the English Wikipedia. RobvanderWaal (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Langlois Bridge at Arles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512000557/http://www.nga.gov/education/classroom/france/picfrance_7.pdf to http://www.nga.gov/education/classroom/france/picfrance_7.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Langlois Bridge at Arles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323102726/http://www.arles-tourisme.com/en_GB/Ville_visite.aspx?Code=5a9a1d8d-245a-4f15-9793-ee9714f7b113&Page=1&Ville=Arles to http://www.arles-tourisme.com/en_GB/Ville_visite.aspx?Code=5a9a1d8d-245a-4f15-9793-ee9714f7b113&Page=1&Ville=Arles

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)