Talk:William Hogarth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee William Hogarth was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
March 26, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed


Please add the following to the bibliography on William Hogarth:

Frédéric Ogée and Peter Wagner, eds., William Hogarth: Theater and the Theater of Life (Los Angeles, 1997) Hans-Peter Wagner, William Hogarth. Das graphische Werk (Saarbrücken, 1998) David Bindman, Frédéric Ogée and Peter Wagner, eds. Hogarth: Representing Nature's Machines (Manchester, 2001)

Hogarth Disambig needed[edit]

Could someone with admin status get rid of the hogarth - william hogarth redirect at all? There are a few other hogarth's that could get disambig status, and it would be more wiki than this current redirect!User:SatuSuro

You don't need to be an admin to edit a redirect. If you get redirected, just follow the blue link at the top of the page back and edit the page. I turned Hogarth into a dab page and added a bunch of them. Feel free to add more. Rl 12:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Marriage à-la-mode[edit]

The third in the series, The Quack Doctor, shows the Count visiting an avaricious and seedy doctor with two women, to ascertain which of them gave him a sexual disease.

Given only the pictures, how can one say the three go to the doctor due to a sexual disease? --Abdull 10:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One way is by the mercury pills, which were the standard treatment for syphilis at the time. David Spector 03:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Failed Good Article Status[edit]

I failed this article because it is insufficiently referenced. joturner 16:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How does one "fail" a Good Article? How is a bibliography of nine items insufficient? joturner is currently offering himself as Administrator. Will this be a wise move for Wikipedia? --Wetman 04:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
To err is human; I must have misread that, thinking it was bibliography in the sense that it was a list of his works (I'm so used to seeing the "References" when referring to actual works). I do have a problem with the section structure of the article, but will reinstate the nomination due to the mistake. joturner 05:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
And about the "fail" part. The title of the template is {{FailedGA}}. Perhaps "declined" would be a more appropriate word, but I'm going with the template name which has been accepted for quite some time. joturner 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I note now that the Good Article status may be failed/declined at Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations by any passer-by who is so inclined: "everyone has veto power". I won't waste any more time over "Good Articles". --Wetman 05:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I concur with joturner's conclusion but not for the same reason. The references seem appropriate to me, and the pictures are quite nice. The article needs a copy-edit to reword short, choppy sentences and avoid clumbsy wording such as, "learned to engrave shopcards and the like." I do not believe it is broad enough because it focuses almost entirely on describing and interpreting his works. There is very little about his personal life (including his death), the different thoughts/philosophy/artists that influenced his work, and in turn how his works influenced others (and who it influenced). I would imagine all that information would be fairly important, but it is nearly completely absent from the article. - Dozenist talk 13:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

dont want to read all that make it shorter for people to read[edit]

please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

15-April-2007: The article on William Hogarth does, indeed, contain numerous details; however, because Hogarth drew political cartoons, the socio-political events of the time period are addressed to explain the artwork, in the same manner as addressing Mark Twain's social commentary contained in his writings. When a biographical article involves politics, expect some of the complexity of a US President or famous state governor. Try scanning through sections to bypass excess details. -Wikid77 05:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Enlarging avoid PNG[edit]

15-April-2007 - Why Wikipedia is so S-L-O-W: The article on William Hogarth is an excellent example for converting to quick JPEG images and sizing the width of images, since so many paintings are explained in the text. There was one huge PNG sketch image about the English Stage, near the top, causing a delay, so I linked to a quick JPEG version from Wikimedia Commons for rapid display of that sketch (over 6x times faster than PNG). With that massive slow PNG file avoided, I expanded the size of 6 other paintings about 65% so they seem about double in size. Wikipedia handling of quick JPEG images is quite amazing in 2007, so even though the 6 other paintings are vastly larger and easily seen now, the amount of extra image-data is still less than the entire, huge data transfer needed for that single massive PNG file which was replaced with a JPEG. PNG files are typically so inefficient that a few PNG files are typically many, many times larger than the entire article and all other GIF/JPEG images COMBINED. In 2007, Wikipedia often handles PNG files as, not just 3x times larger or slower than JPEG format, but PNG files often expand to a massive 7x or 9x or often 14x times slower/larger than equivalent JPEG files. Consequently,

  • avoid 99% of PNG files, like the plague:
  • if a painter has a JPEG painting, display that instead of a massive PNG image;
  • if only PNG files are available, yikes, make them as tiny as possible; tiny PNG files are only 3x times slower than JPEG, while larger PNG files can be 14x or even 25x times larger, slower than JPEG files of the same width/height;
  • if only PNG files are available, consider a text-link to a PNG file, instead of directly displaying the actual cumbersome PNG image, so a user can click to get the slow time-consuming delay when loading the huge, gargantuan, bulky PNG data: a text-link to an image is coded with colon-prefix ":Image" as:
[[:Image:pix27.PNG | <click to load massive PNG image>]];
  • once the devastating, crippling effect of those massive PNG files is bypassed, enlarge the JPEG images as 250px to 300px so that people don't have to "click to enlarge" just to see a basic image; highly detailed images could be 350px-400px, but usually 300px or less is adequate without squeezing text-lines to just 5-words-per-line; larger than 300px is often too big for nearby text.

An article that displays several JPEG files is likely to have more text data than all JPEG-images combined; however, an article with huge, massive PNG files will typically be 80% PNG data to 20% text, overwhelmed by the slow, cumbersome PNG files clogging Internet transmission. -Wikid77 06:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Other issues[edit]

[ Place untitled topics here. -Wikid77 ]


Home life?[edit]

This article gives great detail of his professional career but what about his life? Did he have a wife named Jane? Children? Friends? Even William Shakespeare has more biographical information - with less documentation to go on! Shir-El too 02:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

fix the clutter[edit]

There are so many images on this article that it is quite cluttered. How do you editors feel about moving most of them to a gallery at the bottom of the article? Kingturtle (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The gallery is in place. I have deleted all the explcit pixel widths from the images, which considerably reduces the cluttered effect. Is that sufficient for you? - Pointillist (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons." WP:IG
I was passing by [stalking a helpful editor] when I noticed the instability regarding this. It is the 'indiscriminate' part that concerns me: a much larger gallery, and the cat, is available at our image repository; it is preferable to direct to that instead of an arbitrary selection at this sister. Images should support the article—an example or, better yet, a cited mention,—other content has its place at commons. This does not deprive a reader, they get text here and images with a klik, and resolves what might always be contestable, an individual preference. cygnis insignis 14:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The gallery (never edited by me until yesterday) is hardly unstable, having been in place since 2008 - see above. If you bother to read the article you will see that most of the gallery images are mentioned in the text, and the selection cannot be called random. The gallery here is very consistent with what art FAs have these days. It might be moved up into the text in single rows. If you don't like lots of images, don't read articles (or books) on art. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"Removed template again. Take it to talk, with arguments referring to WP:IG." [1] So I did. cygnis insignis 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
And then immediately removed the gallery completely! You need to produce arguments for this which will cut ice at the VA project, & you haven't begun yet. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Previous discussion resulted in the guidelines, which I quoted, as you requested. I have no intention in being drawn into arguing with someone who takes such an obnoxious stance "if you had bothered" "if you don't like…" Go chase yourself mate. cygnis insignis 16:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Bye then.. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The guidelines on WP:IG are very clear, and this quote in particular is relevant to the article "One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons." And please stop removing the cleanup-gallery template. memphisto 17:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not in fact relevant. This refers to the title of the whole article; articles called "Gallery of ..." used to be fairly common several years ago, and by consensus a few like Gallery of sovereign-state flags remain. Clearly "Gallery of William Hogarth images" would be a ridiculous title for this article. I'm afraid you just don't understand the policy, which I played a considerable part in drafting. I'm not sure I can agree it is "very clear" if it continues to throw up these misunderstandings. It was originally written mainly to discourage gallery-only articles, but few of these now survive. I'll take this to the project now, and I have adjusted the guideline to clarify matters - Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Galleries. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Johnbod, arguments and discussion and consensus have established that galleries are necessary in cases where visual art works need to be seen in order for them to be understood because words do not suffice and where sufficient accompanying text justifies the imagery (which are not FU but only PD)...Modernist (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone still working on this article &/OR interested in cleaning it up?[edit]

There seems to have been very little input since 2010. I'm wondering if there is anyone who originally worked on it around and who would have qualms about my removing a lot of internal red links to pages that really didn't and don't merit consideration, namely authors of references cited who are highly unlikely to be considered to be notable. Thanking you in advance for your interest! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Be bold, Iryna. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 06:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, Jack! Just doing a little spring cleaning for poor old Hogarth: he deserves a reasonable entry in Wikipedia. Face-smile.svg --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)