Talk:Nu couché

Nudity Low‑importance

	Nudity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of nudity and naturism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NudityWikipedia:WikiProject NudityTemplate:WikiProject Nuditynudity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not in Wikipedia's voice, please

There'a a world of difference between observing "This group of nudes by Modigliani served to reaffirm ..." and "Christie's lot notes observes that this group ...". One would hope that editors able to contribute effectively at the article were alert to the difference (and indeed, I suggest, do better than merely copy-paste quotes from critiques in the popular press). JVollenhoven 15:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of sections

I recognize that this is a subjective opinion, but I find it a bit crass to place the “2015 Sale” section first, above the sections covering the work itself.

I believe I am acting in the true spirit of Wikipedia as well as hewing closer to the accepted rules of article structure by moving the “2015 Sale” section to the end of the article - sections should be structured chronologically whenever feasible and the sale is objectively the most recent waypoint in the artwork’s timeline.

Furthermore, this article is ostensibly about a significant work of art, and taken within the greater scope of the history of Art History, information on the piece itself must always take precedence over any financial discussion it may engender.

Yes, the 2015 record-setting sale is part of the story, and of course it has a place in this article. That place, however, is not at the top. Much like the gross*[1] over-commercialization and financial speculation within the art market, the 2015 sale it is a product of modern forces, and being the most recent development in the greater story at hand, it is the newest so it goes last.

[1] “gross” in the financial sense relating to size or volume, not as a critique of a particular aesthetic

🆃 🆁 🆂™ 19:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]