Talk:Paleoart/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Will start reviewing soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • that attempts to reconstruct or depict prehistoric life according to the current knowledge and scientific evidence at the time of the artwork's creation. – do we need all this? Would suggest "that attempts to depict prehistoric life according to the scientific evidence" for brevity. The rest does not seem to add something.
  • often limited – suggest to remove the "often". Its always limited.
  • the opening of the western frontier opening? – As not everybody reading this is American, I would add "North America" here and link to the North American Frontier.
  • "paleoimagery", which includes a variety of cultural and media depictions of prehistoric life in various manifestations. – Unclear, what would those be? The definition of the term is not clear. Is it a broader category, including both paleoart and non-scientific depictions?
    • Unfortunately, the source does not go into detail about specific examples apart from some kind of vague categories I've opted against including ("science tool, cultural symbol, etc") because I do not think they aid in understanding. The source referenced by Ansón, Fernández & Ramos (2015) for this part of the paper is not one that I own. Anyway, I expanded the sentence about paleoimagery to more distinctly differentiate it from paleoart in this context. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • although 87% of respondents recognized an increase in accuracy of paleoart over time – why the "although" here?
    • Ansón, Fernández & Ramos (2015) report the 78% who recognize accuracy as important to paleoart as seeming low, and contrast it with the 87%, but I agree my wording is unnecessarily awkward so I've just changed "although" to "and". -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The production of paleoart requires by definition a substantial amount of research – bit vague, what would "research" include? The paleoartist is surely not required to do original research before being able to draw (the sentence reads as this would be the case); he needs however take existing research into account.
    • Good catch, 'research' here could mean original scientific research or the more colloquial meaning intended. I've changed it to "reading of research". -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • but including any fossilized structures its soft tissue – something missing here?
  • Paleoart is unique in its compositional challenge in that its content must be imagined and inferred, as opposed to directly referenced, and, in many cases, this includes depictions of animal behavior and environmental topography. – as you are talking about "content", I would not continue with "depictions". And why "environmental topography"? All other aspects of the environment need to be inferred as well, so why not simply "environment"?
  • it is supposedly representing (lack of horns, sharp teeth) the evidence is lacking that it represents – convoluted wording, disturbs reading.
  • Grecian – link it. What is it?
  • first known fossil material skeleton – either material or skeleton
  • the naturalist artist – suggest "the artist" or "Hermann"
  • which depicted it as trunkless – trunkless? Without a trunk? I don't understand.
  • Cuvier, Jean Hermann's correspondent whose attention later brought his pterosaur sketches to light, – I don't understand this either. Do we need all this (except for "Cuvier")?
  • One notable deviation from this approach – What approach? Too imprecise.
    • The source used for this statement (Witton 2018, p 22) says "Cuvier-like approach and attitude", so I changed it to that. If this still unclear and needs further explication, let me know and I'll add more detail. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not include this paper?
    • Yes, I think this source is worth adding (and a couple sentences about it in the "early scientific" section). -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The role of art in disseminating paleontological knowledge took on a new salience with the introduction of the term "dinosaur" by Sir Richard Owen in 1842. – Was it really the naming of the dinosauria itself, or was it rather the Waterhouse models?
    • Yes, I rewrote this statement to more accurately reflect the source used for it (Colagrande & Felder 2000). I also added a little more detail on this concept from the same source to better segue into the next concept discussed. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first life-size sculptures depicting dinosaurs – These sculptures do not only depict dinosaurs! Should be kept in mind for the following discussion as well.
  • Knight's foray into paleoart can be traced to a commission ordered by Dr. Jacob Wortman – but when? Any date?
  • Not sure if this here is a mit too much detail and could be removed: Gould, who was a prominent fan and popularizer of Knight's works, used one of Knight's paintings for the cover of his 1991 book Bully for Brontosaurusand another in his 1996 book Dinosaur in a Haystack.
  • This painting was one of the few works of paleoart produced before 1960 to depict dinosaurs as active, fast-moving creatures, – You could mention that Owen himself reconstructed his Megalosaurus as a very mammal like animal, with erect limbs and so on, implying an active life style.
    • I haven't come across this claim before myself, and don't see it mentioned in the sources I've been using. Do you have a source in mind for this claim? Happy to include a line about it if I can find one, though I'm not sure it's strictly necessary. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rudolph Zallinger and Zdeněk Burian – both Americans?
  • Why not incorporating Hendersons "Restoring Dinosaurs as Living Animals"?
    • Despite owning The Complete Dinosaur, I'd forgotten about this chapter--thanks! So far I've fleshed out the "Artistic principles" section of the article based largely on this chapter. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This classic depiction of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals remained the status quo until the 1960s, – What does the dinosaur Renaissance has to do with "other prehistoric animals"?
  • What about modern life-sized sculptures that are seen in various "dinosaur parks" around the world? What about 3D virtual realities and related stuff?
    • I think that 3D virtual reality and related things (presumably including video games) might belong better in the cultural depictions of dinosaurs article, since this one has only incorporated mentions to popular culture when I've come across them in the sources I've been using. As for sculptures in other dinosaur parks around the world, do you have a suggestion for a source to put such a mention in the proper context of an overview of paleoart on the whole? In my perusal of the sources I've been using, the Crystal Palace dinosaurs are the only ones that come up in an overview of the subject and its history. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, its simply a matter of the medium? Virtual realities were repeatedly discussed in scientific meetings and are increasingly adopted by museums, so this should be paleoart per definition. But if no source makes this connection we have to leave it out, of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, it might just be a bit early on for these kinds of technological developments to be covered in the secondary/tertiary sources I've been using--but I will certainly keep an eye out for new things that mention this! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • various color studies – I would always use the term pigmentation. We are not able to make inferences on color.
  • et al. – I would avoid this technical term and use "and colleagues" instead.
  • Its opening was timed to coincide with the 2018 conference of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in October, and is scheduled to run until January 2019 – maybe too much detail, suggest to remove this.
  • Sarjeants "Crystal Palace" (in the 1997 "Encyclopedia of dinosaurs") may contain additional info.
    • I'm reluctant to make the "Early scientific paleoart" section longer than it already is, but I did use the Sarjeant chapter for an unreferenced sentence and added a little more detail. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you mention the SVP grants and stuff, you may want to mention the Dinosaur Society of the UK, to have it not solely centered on the US. The Encyclopedia of dinosaurs contains an useful entry.
    • For this, I'm a bit confused. The chapter on the Dinosaur Society from the Currie & Padian encyclopedia refers to a U.S. organization. I found another source that mentions that the U.S. society is now extinct and there is a current U.K. one, but I have been unable so far to find a good source that discusses this society in a broader context of paleoart in general. Am I looking in the wrong place in the Currie & Padian encyclopedia, or do you have a suggestion about where to find another source on this? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Encyclopedia of dinosaurs" has also an "Reconstruction and Restoration" entry written by Sylvia Czerkas.
  • @Ferahgo the Assassin:, that is everything for now. Article is well-written overall; needs some further polishing, but should be a fine GA soon. Should you have any difficulties locating the mentioned sources, let me know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And to be clear, we don't necessarily need everything of the above to reach GA; please understand my points merely as suggestions for improvement. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly for your review, Jens! I’ll get to work on these soon. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goldfuss was also the first paleoartist – this is not exactly true, as Goldfuss did not draw that illustration by himself (the paleoartist was Christian Hohe).
  • Often, paleoart has another goal not mentioned in the article that is especially widespread in paleoart published in papers: To illustrate scientific hypothesis. Not just take the available evidence into account, but to draw it in a way to show the animal with, e.g., specific behaviors that have been inferred from the fossil record (brooding behavior, gragariousness, or whatever). Not sure if a source would be available here; but if one could be found it would be a great addition.

Despite the two new points above (I also responded to one older point above), I'm promoting now. Congratulations! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've now fixed the line on Goldfuss and included substantial coverage of "goals" of paleoart under the Production section, where I think it fits best, citing Witton and the Ansón, Fernández & Ramos paper. Thanks again for your very helpful suggestions and promotion of the article! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paleoart/GA1&oldid=878597693"