Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oviri (Gauguin)/archive1

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 promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 [1].

Oviri (Gauguin)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Modernist, C1cada

This article is about a rather frightening 1894 sculpture by Paul Gauguin, who described the Tahitian goddess of death and mourning on which it is based as "monstrous and majestic...drunk with pride, rage and sorrow". Gauguin was optimistic about its commercial potential, but it languised unsold for years; today first rank casts sell for around €80k at Christies. It was finally placed on his grave in 1973, which is both curious and moving. I wouldnt want it anywhwere near my headstone.

Myself and Modernist laboured on the article for years until white-knighted by C1cada. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comments by Curly Turkey[edit]

Normally we don't have inline cites in the lead unless it's for something controversial, which isn't the case with any of the info in this lead. It would be much more readable if they were dropped.
Would vengeful mother be worth a redlink?
Réunion des musées nationaux almost certianly should be redlinked: it has a French, Dutch, and German page already.
"Recent exhibitions" is problematic—how "recent" is "recent"? What determines the cutoff? Who will maintain the list as "recent" exhibitions become un-"recent"? A number of them are unsourced.

All are now sourced; the section will essentially remain as current as possible...Modernist (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The French article for terre-cuite links to the English article for Terracotta. Are they different things? If not, is there any reason to prefer the French term?
Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Curly, working through these. Ceoil (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update; think I have most sorted; trimming the cites in the lead, adding a few links (need an article on "vengeful mother"). Modernist has cited the recent exhibitions sect. Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Per WP:IMGSIZE, should generally use image scaling rather than fixed pixel size
File:Agostini_-_Tahiti,_plate_page_0080.png needs a US PD tag
File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Oviri_-_Watercolor_monotype_F_30.jpg: if I'm reading the history correctly this was first exhibited in 1945 - how does the current tag apply? Was it published prior to that? Same with File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Oviri_-_Watercolor_monotype_F_31.jpg
File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Soyez_amoureuses_vous_serez_heureses_MFAB_57.582.jpg: need to account for the copyright on the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All have been sorted, except the last one, which I am mulling over. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Soyez_amoureuses_vous_serez_heureses_MFAB_57.582.jpg has been removed. Ceoil (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This version is fine: File:Paul Gaugin, Soyez amoureuses vous serez heureuses, relief.jpg Coldcreation (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Coldcreation, and for all the edits. Myself and Modernist have decided against including Soyez amoureuses vous serez heureuses, tempting as it was. We had issuers of text squash, and other things. Ceoil (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Coemgenus

Excellent article, I enjoyed reading it. All of the prose is good, I could find only one change to suggest: is there something you can link "vahine" to? Either that, or use an explanatory footnote. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). I agree about removing, I see there's still some cites in the lede. The Reception sect is a bit small but Interpretation is nice. Perhaps the Reception sect could be expanded upon a bit more with additional info from secondary sources? — Cirt (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Cirt - down now to two cites in the lead, which are better off explained early. Looking at expanding the 'Reception' bit; always interesting and waspy in that period. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I keep forgetting to get back to this, but I will soon. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

~~"a savage woman with long blond or grey hair": "blonde", surely, not "blond"? This is in the lead and also in the body.~~
~~The first sentence of the "Description" section has a trailing quote; is this just editing debris, or is this partially a quote?~~
~~"the only of his songs": presumably should be either "the only one of his songs" or "the only song of his".~~
~~The paragraph beginning "Nancy Mowll Mathews" is uncited.~~
~~"Richard Brettell depicts the Oviri figure in at least one drawing": Brettell is a modern critic, as far as I can see, so I'm not sure what the intended meaning is here.~~
If either the 1894 woodcut or the 1894 drawing in the gallery are among the works that Brettel discusses then I think this should be made definite in the captions.
Can you give the locations of the three castings Gauguin himself made? The only location that seems to be given in the article is that one is in the Musée d'Orsay. Similarly, if the locations of any more of the bronzes made from Monfreid's plaster copy are known, that would be worth mentioning.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for the ce's and helpful comments. I've taken care of the first few easier ones; working on the last two, also pinging Modernist who knows more about this period and the sources than I. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good; I see there's now a broken image link near the top of the article, so you might look at that. I'll check in again when you've responded on the last two points (and if there are no sources to answer those questions, that's fine; I just think we should give that information if it's available). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Mike; img fixed and I agree; will ping you when we are done, one way or the other. Ceoil (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re the other two casts - private collections sothebys,christies - now mentioned in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, but it should be in the body too -- am I not seeing it or did you not add it yet? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, mentioned now in the body; but not entirely happy with what we have found/pieced together. See discussion here with User:Coldcreation, one of our more knowledgeable editors on such matters. We just don't know, and can't be sure; it's a secretive and frankly money driven business. Ceoil (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected it might be like that. I've supported below; I'm sure you'll add any definite information that can be found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your help and constructive input is appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article really is about the Orsay version (the context within which Oviri was created, and how it was received), so the whereabouts of other versions is secondary. That said, I will try to track down the locations of divers casts (whether bronze, plaster, or stoneware). Until then, I will remove the mention of private collections, as this has yet to be determined. Coldcreation (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

In refs but not cited: Branciforte, Castets, Goldwater, Kunstler, Malingue (1943), [not sure what to make of oft-mentioned but never-cited Morice and Vollard], Pielkovo, Sugana, Szech, Wadley.
Banished to "further reading, but may cut Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Gedo give the year of publication as a page number? Coincidence? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; fixed Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Gauguin was deeply unhappy..." This paragraph seems a bit incoherent. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cut now Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Yeon Shim Chung?
Don't know, debris from an earlier version, but has a fb page! Cut now Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"his familiar Inca profile" familiar to whom, and who says it is Inca?
Cut Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"monstrous and majestic, drunk with pride, rage and sorrow" if you're suggesting this also is Gauguin's self-perception and was thus projected into his work, please make the connection explicit
Now says Related is the delight Gauguin took from its alternative title "savage", and the implications of a brutal, bloodthirsty deity, which, he seems to imply, refers as much to himself as the goddess Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
when Degas quoted La Fontaine's fable The Wolf and the Dog: "You see, Gauguin is the wolf." OK. According to Degas, is Gauguin the wolf in the story, or in the Oviri, or both... and... if you're gonna toss out a mention a story by La Fontaine, you should give at least a one-sentence summary of the story itself and how it is connected to Gauguin

linked fable, with short, 8 odd word summary. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what Vaugirard studio?

Linked now Ceoil (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"She smothers a wolf with her feet while tightly clutching" Later text says it's unclear if she's smothering or embracing.. perhaps the uncertainty whether the civilized is embracing or killing the wild is a point worthy of mention in the lede.... maybe
- The whole smothering/not smothering contradiction still not addressed.

Ceoil (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"ever keen to increase his public exposure" please add "According to Danielsson" to make it explicit that Danielsson adds this editorial info, not WP
Yes; reworded Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"invoking ideas of sacrifice, infanticide and the archetype of the vengeful mother." None of these 3 ideas are mentioned in later text, none cited.. and while we're on this topic, you know, I think the whole interpretation section hits pretty hard on the idea that Oviri is a symbol of Gauguin himself as an androgynous wild man, yet that isn't mentioned in the lede... so the interpretations in the lede are unsupported, but those supported by the text are unmentioned.
Yes, that's absolutely the case. Drat; working....Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please translate Tueuse in both mentions ["The Murderess", referring to Oviri]
Done Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a request not strictly related to the current article and thus not formally a part of this FAC review, but as a polite appeal to your better nature, you'd be doing a service to us all if you'd create at least a stub for Ernest Chaplet.
- Multiple thanks for the Chaplet article. I added Wikiprojects to the talk page.
The description section doesn't mention the vagina in the back of Oviri's head
- Still doesn't mention it. Should.
  - Done Ceoil (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The ceramic was never shipped out." where do quotation marks go? Is that part of the quote?

Cut Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"invoking ideas of sacrifice, infanticide and the archetype of the vengeful mother." Is all of this from Taylor, then?
No, cited to the Kahn now. Ceoil (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interpretation is a large section, so there should be at least 1 sentence in the lede about interpretation (unless I missed it). You know, "Some people say it's Gauguin's epithet as an androgynous wild man, but some people say it's a a vengeful mother, blah blah bah.

Added a bit, more to come there - might have to re-balance the lead. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi, heading out now for a while, but hope to finish addressing these this evening. Your input has been most helpful and welcome. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Am re-giging the interpretation sect. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - interpretation sect re-giged. Phew. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry so slow but I don't always have blocks of time big enough to actually engage my bain and think about what I'm doing. After Oviri wasn't or nearly wasn't admitted to the salon in the winter of 1894, was there any notable reaction to its... showing? I'm actually not clear if it was admitted or not because an earlier sentence says it was expelled, which to me at least seems to mean "sayonara baby!" And then it made a stir much later in 1903 or so, but where was it between times? Tks.
"and invokes 'Séraphitus-Séraphita'" invokes is present tense, confusingly, and did the play invoke that or did Gauguin? I assume the latter.. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"of the vengeful mother, drawing from..." the word "drawing" ambiguous in article about art
"Tahitian song; a melancholy" dash or comma but not semicolon please (grammar/punct)
"the love of two women" for each other, or third person? Nitpick: I'd go with "recount" rather than "convey", but maybe that's just me.

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

Generally seems a tad unpolished, but the key stuff is there.

Noa Noa, explain & move link to first mention. Italicise.
"including Assyrian and Majapahit mummies" - Not Assyrian mummies. Lk to an art article. Mention that this one is the one, & in the gallery, & expand caption.
Foxes in Japan - lk to Kitsune
Belinda Thomson's catalague for the Tate/NGA exhibition seems to say there was only one (coloured) woodcut (the one you show), plus the 2 monotypes.
More later Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, have begun to address these. Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done except incorporating Thomson. We need an article for Noa Noa. Ceoil (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.