Talk:P. S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this beautiful, interesting and well-written article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A few initial comments:

• Please wikilink Peder Severin Krøyer, Skagen and Skagen Painters in the body of the article. In fact, please check that every term linked in the lead is also linked in the body.

• Please provide Marie's dates: readers need to know Peder and Marie's relative ages.

• Please state that Civita d'Antino is in the Abruzzo. Might also be wise to say that Ravello is in Salerno province.

• I didn't add Salerno as I thought it was a bit awkward and there are wikilinks after all;

• The "A luncheon" painting is explained to be a breakfast in the text; might be an idea to say that also in the image caption.

• I've added a note to the Luncheon but I'm not convinced it doesn't clutter it up; I might capriciously remove it again in a minute;

• Please wikilink Skagens Museum at first appearance. Perhaps also wikilink frieze.

• Might help readers to gloss Plesner and Bindesbøll as architects.

• it isn't always easy to tell where opinions come from. For example, "The result nevertheless has a rather melancholic tone." Are we to assume this comes from ref 21 (Køge Hamdelsskole)? It isn't obvious; might be best to say here and in similar situations "The artist x.y observes that the result nevertheless has a rather melancholic tone." Same thing for "an impression of a happy family environment" - who thinks that? There are other cases so please do a trawl through the art sections.

• The seemingly unattributed opinions are probably Ipigott or me waxing lyrical with opinions derived from more than one source. I will try to tie most of them down to a properly respectable critic.

Hi Chiswick Chap. Great you could take on this review and make all these constructive comments. Ad melancholic tone: the article states "Det blev malet som en manifestation af det lykkelige ægteskab, men selvom de holder hinanden under armen, er det som om, at der savnes en kontakt imellem dem. Marie er fjern i blikket, og Krøyer synes at mangle kræfter til at kunne fastholde hende. Billedet fortæller om fællesskab, men handler også om ensomhed." (It was painted as evidence of a happy marriage, but even though they are holding each other under their arms, it seems as if contact between them is missing. Marie has a distant look, and Krøyer seems to lack the strength to hold her tightly. The painting represents companionship, but also depicts loneliness.) I tried to summarize this in the article. Perhaps the ref should be repeated or this translation should be added as a footnote? I can quote other similar views of the painting (e.g. from Svanholm, p. 149, who also comments on Marie's distant look out over the sea while Krøyer looks at her and tries to hold her towards him). These are certainly not unattributed opinions. I would never dare to offer my own views on Wikipedia!--Ipigott (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

All I was suggesting was that you might like to name the critic(s) when an opinion piece is being used; you can certainly include a short quote in the ref, and short translation (as if it were the quote) in the text if you like. And repeating the ref might be wise in one or two places. But if you're all happy with the text as it is, that's fine with me for this item.

I'm happy with the text as it is. I think the summaray given expresses the mood. I just wanted to show that these were not personal opinions but were based on a careful examination of sources. I know from experience that when the sources are in Danish, it is not always too easy to see how far they justify the text.--Ipigott (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend repeating refs whenever doubt might arise. And in a language which thinks frokost is lunch, clarification may well be necessary!

• Please gloss and wikilink Alfvén's first appearance in body of article with "the Swedish composer".

• Sankt Hans bonfire: perhaps it would be helpful to quote or cite some critics' opinions of the painting, given its importance in the story.

I've added something to the article. The other refs as well as the wikilink provide more background.--Ipigott (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that's perfect.

• Please gloss Den Frie (something like "the artists' association" or "Denmark's first artists' association").

• "mishmash": perhaps more common in German and Danish than in English. Maybe we should put something like "muddle" or "mix".

• "mishmash" I think is fine and I like the way it looks and sounds. I went to a posh girls' school and I'm sure we would have found that quite acceptable.

• We used some quite, er, different words for mixup at my very posh boy's school.

• It's reasonably clear that in Roses, the painter has compared Marie to the flowers. Similarly in Summer Evening at Skagen Beach, her gold-embroidered dress echoes the golden reflections in the water. Has no critic mentioned this?

• About Roses and the dress: I don't think anybody mentions this specifically ; it's all about the light in general.

Thanks for taking on the review (and risking full-on foot-stamping "I want my own way" Belle mode). I think I've covered most of those points now:

Belle (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks; if you could put each item's reply under its comment I'd appreciate it! 15:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead

The lead needs to be extended slightly to mention each section of the article; in particular, it must cover Midsummer Eve Bonfire on Skagen Beach.

I have extended this slightly. Belle (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

References

It would look better if all the references that name authors used Surname, Forename.

To do, when I log back in later. Belle (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems your editor-fairy has waved a wand over it for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think we have handled virtually everything you have mentioned. Please let me know if anything more is required. And thanks once again for your diligence.--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both, and the other editors involved, for putting together a fascinating article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Scoresheet

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Passes spot checks.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	They're all tagged PD; those that were downloaded from blogs should probably be tagged PD-Art as well for clarity.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.