Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Goldfinch (painting)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [1].

The Goldfinch (painting)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following my first book FAC, I now present my first foray into the world of art, a short piece about an iconic bird painting that inspired an award-winning book and a rather poor film. I am greatly indebted to Aa77zz for help with sourcing and detailed comments before I came here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

[edit]
  • Generally looks good. Some comments:
  • "The Goldfinch (Dutch: Het puttertje) is a 1654 painting by Dutch artist Carel Fabritius" - I don't like years as adjectives, or false titles, and the article doesn't I think mention the important fact that it is signed. Plus you miss the main link. Suggest: "The Goldfinch (Dutch: Het puttertje) is a painting by the Dutch Golden Age artist Carel Fabritius, signed and dated 1654." Or something.
  • "The painting is unusual for the Flemish Baroque period.." - but this isn't a Flemish Baroque work. It's Dutch Golden Age painting, though the same is more or less true for that. There's another of these later.
  • "the bird's nickname puttertje" - or "common name"?
  • "The goldfinch is a popular topic for painters" - painters don't really have "topics". "The goldfinch frequently appears in paintings" or something?
  • "Nearly 500 Renaissance religious paintings..." - again a link to plain Renaissance is unlikely to help readers.
  • "German-Dutch art historian Wilhelm Martin" pretty ancient, so better give dates - 1876 - 1954.
  • "Fabritius was born in 1622, as Carel Pietersz, in Middenbeemster..." - odd. Fabritius is a normal surname, which happens to be the usual way he is referred to (just like Rembrandt). This implies it was a nickname, like El Greco say. "Initially he worked as a carpenter (Latin: fabritius)" may be true, though I think the word is rather more vague than that, but is essentially a coincidence afaik.
  • "Fabritius died young," - well very young, just 2ish years into his independent career, at 32.
  • "According to his contemporary Arnold Houbraken..." - no, born 1660. "His first biographer" maybe.
  • "at the Hôtel Drouot in Paris on 5 December 1892" - better explain that Hôtel Drouot is and was exclusively an auction house (or wierd monopolistic consortium of them). We don't link Paris (nor New York later).
  • "The painting is currently in the permanent collection of the Mauritshuis in The Hague" - it isn't going anywhere. WP:VAMOS deprecates currently, & "permanent" is also not needed, after 125 years. The lead gets it right.
  • "survives a terrorist bombing at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art in which his mother dies. He takes the Fabritius painting with him as he escapes the building" - presumably in the novel it was on loan for an exhibition. Better say so.
  • I think you are right to have a gallery - personally I use "<gallery widths="200px" heights="200px"> , then the normal </gallery> to close. I'd add a nice pic of the real bird somewhere. On my set-up Elgort is all beside the notes. Personally I'd have him and Thore-Berger in a gallery at the bottom with some of the other pics. The Mignon might be better as a cropped detail - possibly others.

Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2
  • Ok, I've been away for a while, & the article has grown considerably, so there is more to say.
  • Firstly, I think the increased number of sections have odd names and the wrong sequence. I would suggest re-arranging as follows:
    • Lead
    • Description (now "Physical characteristics")
    • Goldfinch (or "the Bird") - now "Subject"
    • Style
    • Artist (now "Background") - ok this & "Style" could be either way round.
    • Provenance (now "Ownership")
    • Cultural references and exhibitions (now "In popular culture")

- FunkMonk said below "In other painting FACs I've reviewed, background on the artist was placed before description of the painting itself, ..." but in my experience this is neither usual, nor usually the best approach. The subject of the article is the painting, and the description of that should normally follow the lead - here there are two intervening sections.

  • The pic "... Abraham Mignon (circa 1668) shows the water-drawing behaviour of the bird." & the Dou are in the next gallery after that is described. Mind you, if the description section follows the lead, I think the first gallery strip can perhaps be removed, with the 2 pics of artist and bird in their natural places in the text.
  • The caption for "The Nativity (1470–1475) by Piero della Francesca" needs to locate the bird, which took me a while to find.
  • "Fabritius' student, Mattias Spoors, and church deacon Simon Decker also died as a result of the explosion" - reads slightly oddly. What was the deacon doing? Was he the subject of a portrait? If so, better say.
  • " in the second quarter of the fourteenth century while the Black Death pandemic gripped Europe" BD arrived in Sicily in 1347, and eg in England arrived in 1348, with the peak until 1351, and a second major wave in the 1360s... "in the middle" might be more accurate.
  • "The Goldfinch was lost for more than two centuries before the previously unknown painting first came to light in 1859" - "The Goldfinch was lost and unknown for more than two centuries before it first came to light in 1859" better?
  • "The Frick exhibition was part of a world tour of selected Golden Age paintings from the Mauritshuis closure during a two-year..." needs something, if only a possessive. Also dates needed - 2013-2014 at the Frick.
Johnbod, many thanks for your review and support, much appreciated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Theramin

[edit]
Some random comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Nice article, but I wonder if there are other sources out there that should be mined. For example, this book from the Met and National Gallery's Vermeer exhibition in 2001 mentions some interesting points, including:

  • (as you have already mentioned Pliny) the neat reversal of the grapes of Zeuxis (so realistic, it deceived a bird) to this painting of a bird (so realistic, it could fool a person passing by)
  • the Dutch common name of distelvink or putter (or putterje using a Dutch diminutive suffix, so do we have a Dutch speaker to confirm the usage?
  • how the painting may have been displayed, supporting the thesis that it was nailed up by a window
  • the bold strokes with bright colours above and the feathery strokes with dull colours below, adding to the impression of volume and texture
  • are those rings metal, or smooth wood?
  • where is the bucket?

Are there other catalogues, journal articles, etc, that should be consulted?

I've found all I can, although I obv missed this one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And can we pin down the provenance?

  • This is the print collector Chevalier Joseph Guillaume Jean Camberlyn (1783-1861).
  • And this is the art dealer Étienne-François Haro (1827-1897, who retired c.1885).

So who was "E. Martinet"?

  • this contemporaneous record, clearly says "M." (i.e. Monsieur) "E. Martinet", and it appears to be an estate sale.
Great find. This is the 1896 sale. The catalogue includes a picture so there is no doubt. The painting is Lot 16 on page 9 here. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly the notes to the side of the lot say it was sold to Kleinberger, the art dealer. I assume he sold it on to the Mauritshuis, but I doubt it was for the same price he paid for it at the auction (there's a 5% commission from the auction house to add to the 6200 francs to start with). Yomanganitalk 10:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Maritshuis page confirms the sale at the auction and the purchase by the Mauritshuis are separate transactions, so that bit of the "Ownership" section will need rewording. Yomanganitalk 10:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to be separate transaction - Bredius became director of the Mauritshuis in 1889. Brown p.126 has "bought by Bredius for the Mauritshuis (for his account of the sale see Bredius 1939, pp.11-12)". - Aa77zz (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Kleinburger seems to have been a proxy or agent for Bredius. I've copied Bredius's account to the talk page. Yomanganitalk 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the catalogue of the 1892 sale after the death of Thoré-Burger (la collection de feu Thoré-Burger) again with a picture. It is lot 10 on page 13 here (agrees with Brown 1981 p.126) - Aa77zz (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect it was the printer Émile Martinet (1838-1895), of Rue Mignon. His daughter Maxime married Jules Haro, the son of Étienne-François Haro. See this and this.

That's almost certainly correct. The auction was an estate sale. Yomanganitalk 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Theramin (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theramin, thanks for comments, I'm out all day today, but I'll deal with these as soon as I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the provenance, I already had the chevalier ref, now I've also expanded on Haro and Kleinberger. Martinet is more of a problem. Neither of the links is RS, and although this is, it doesn't appear to confirm his family relationship with Haro or his job. I don't doubt the facts, but I can't find a proper source to enable it to be added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is still a nice article, and getting better by the day. Thank you for giving me an excuse to dig into the sources. What a genius Fabritius was. Such a pity he was exploded. I guess my main point is that there is more out there. I see some of the points that have been mentioned in the last couple of days were already in Brown's catalogue raisonné. There are more sources in JSTOR, and I suspect there must be more in Dutch. Do we have anyone local who can help? And I've not read it, but is there anything of worth in Davis's Fabritius and the Goldfinch? More specifically, I had hoped that you might see "other sources … For example … including" and go a bit further than ticking off the list of bullets, but if you'd prefer to have a laundry list of further points to tick off (and apologies, but this is all rather undigested stream-of-consciousness):

  • I have the Davis book, and it's been really useful for background, and telling me what I need to verify, but it's written as a popular history with few footnotes and plenty of speculation, so I don't think it's suitable as direct source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to say a bit more about Fabritius as a link between Rembrandt and Vermeer - for example the Rembrandt-y looseness of the brushwork, and sgraffito use of the end of his brush to create black line through the thickly painted yellow wing - but also the transition in tones away from Rembrandt-esque darkness (which you mention) to Vermeer-esque light (which could be said more explicitly: Vermeer was certainly influenced by Fabritius, and while it is not universally accepted, there is speculation that Vermeer could have been a student of Fabritius).
  • The pleasant online presentation at the Mauritshuis compares the blank walls behind the Fabritius's goldfinch and Vermeer's Milkmaid, which only became clear after discoloured varnish was cleaned off in 2003, and links back to what Bürger said in his 1859 catalogue of the Arenburg collection, about "mur blême", "fonds clairs et pâles" and "lumineuse couleur".[2]
  • Is there more to say about the restoration? Do the technical sources mention X-ray and infrared analysis?
  • You could draw on the suggestion that this painting might have been part of a multi-part trompe-l'oeil installation, perhaps with a separate painting of a ledge and bucket, or even a 3D ledge and bucket below. Fabritius is known to have made images for a perspective box. e.g. his View of Delft. The removal of the border suggests could have been placed on a wall without a frame. The Gerrit Dou painting of the lady shows how a goldfinch could be kept beside a window.
Added text and the Delft painting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the provenance, and Martinet/Haro, perhaps someone in France can help to locate some hardcopy sources, although you don't get more hardcopy than the Haro monument in the Père Lachaise.
  • There is another more finished self-portrait at the National Gallery, which also has an article: Young Man in a Fur Cap (1654). That said, I quite like the loose, sketchy nature of the earlier one (1645) you have chosen.
  • If you can bear adding links to articles in other languages, you might want to use Uno sparviero [it]. (That was earlier, surely, not later? 1510s versus 1654. Perhaps better to say a Renaissance example.)
    I thought that too, but when I re-read it I saw it meant later than the grapes. Then again, if we both misunderstood it probably needs rewording. Yomanganitalk 00:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is fairly usual for the image captions of artworks to include artist, title, date, and where the work is held.
  • As I understand it, Fabritius was still alive when he was dug out from the ruins of his house some hours after the gunpowder explosion in Delft, he was taken to a hospital, but died a short time afterwards. All of the others in the house were dead when they were found. So "died with him" is not quite right.
  • After centuries in private collections ("lost" seems a bit strong, as no one as looking for it) the chardonneret was included in the 1866 Exposition retrospective: tableaux anciens empruntés aux galleries particulières (now there is a topic deserving of an article, as much as the First Impressionist Exhibition) at the Palais des Champ-Élysées which was organised by Édouard Odier [fr] and … Étienne-François Haro.[3] Well, blow me down.

That is probably more than enough from me. Please don't be discouraged - there is a great article there, I just think it needs a bit more. Theramin (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got most of it. There is probably more that could be added on how this panel might physically have worked as a tromp l'oeil, and also linking the Italian article on it:Uno sparviero (unless someone writes a short stub for you... and the Piero della Francesca deserves an article too: one magpie or two?) and in the main I like to add locations for artworks, but you apparently don't, so I'm not going to stand in your way.

Two further points, and then I think my nitpicking be exhausted. I think its first public exhibition in Paris in 1866 is quite important, and it is mentioned in the Mauritshuis presentation. And you might want to see the back and forth on my talk page about Émile Martinet, and some of his works (that were later sold in the same estate sale in 1896) being exhibited in 1874, which I think makes it clear this is the same "E. Martinet". Sadly not the chardonneret though, but nice to give the man his name after all these years. Theramin (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done a stubby article on A Sparrowhawk, and I guess I should be supporting, although as I hope is clear, I've been concentrating on content, rather than language and format. Two further thoughts, though.

  • And then, you mention the "blockbuster" Frick exhibition in 2013-14 with 200,000 attending, but you might want to mention that paintings were out on loan in 2012-14 while the Mauritshuis was renovated,[4] and that there were queues around the corner at the Frick, in the autumn/winter weather, with 13,000 joining as members (quadrupling the number) to jump the queue, and more importantly the goldfinch overshadowing Girl with a Pearl Earring which was expected to be the popular draw (as it had been elsewhere during the two-year world tour, including a million (!) visitors at the Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum, and then at Kobe City Art Museum, but also at the de Young in San Francisco,[5] and the High in Atlanta,[6] and then it seems the Palazzo Fava in Bologna[7][8]). e.g.[9][10] There is a list of earlier exhibitions in the Liedtke catalogue: looks like it goes out roughly every 20 years, 40s 60s, 80s. (Do we know where it was kept during the World Wars?)

This might all be too much - and no doubt the content is driven by the sources - but should we be mentioning 200,000 people at the Frick but not a million visitors the year before in Tokyo? Theramin (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Theramin, I obviously don't want this to become a list of everywhere it's ever been, and we already have Paris, but the two-year tour is clearly a major event and is linked to Tartt's book so I've added a bit on that, and mentioned the million in Tokyo to make it a bit more global. I've also taken the opportunity to add a featured picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be churlish not to support now but there seems to be a discrepancy between the date given for the (presuambly) pre-restoration yellowish goldfinch image (2005) and the date of the restoration (2003). I wondered if the restoration started in 2003 and finished later, but I think the image must be earlier than its 2005 upload date, as it is attributed to "The Yorck Project (2002)" and I suspect it predates that. Theramin (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Yorck Project images were mostly scans from books that were already so old (in 2005) that the photos were out of copyright. The quality & colour of many is just terrible. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't expecting it to be removed, just the date clarified. I challenge you to find another (better) pre-restoration image of the painting. Anyway, I like the restructuring of the article, and I've made and linked a stubby little article for Piero della Francesca's The Nativity. For what it is worth, I think I am ready to support now. Well done. Theramin (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I've no objection to the "yellow" pic being in (in fact I've just now seen it for the first time I think, as it was added after my first run-through). The colour values are probably poor though. Taking any picture with a Yorck & recent image will make it look like there's been a big restoration! Up to you. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theramin, thanks very much for the review and support and the Nativity stub. In view of the comments from you and Johnbod I'll restore the image for the time being. Johnbod, do you think I should add a footnote to the caption to say that the painting may not have been quite as yellow as depicted? I'll see if I can track down a more reliable pre-restoration image, although I'm not sure how easy that will be Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't put it back - although it is almost certainly pre-restoration, there's not a lot to distinguish it from a post-restoration image that has a yellow filter added and, as Johnbod says, the Yorck images are all over the place colour and qualitywise. Yomanganitalk 08:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC) P.S. The main image is now a FP. Yomanganitalk 08:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yomangani:, yes, I saw the FP, thanks for that. I don't think the image is a big deal, but I'm inclined to keep it in for now, unless or until we can find a better pre-restoration image, because we do know from the sources that the old varnish had yellowed enough to have to be removed, so it's just a matter of whether this is the correct shade. Given the vagaries of colour reproduction by cameras, book printings and laptop/tablet screens, we are unlikely to get perfect reproduction of colours—and that applies to all the images here although probably to a lesser extent Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, up to you. Holding up any photo in a book, catalogue or postcard in front of the original painting is usually a disconcerting experience. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, I'm not too fond of all the white space in the last part of the article. Is Ansel Elgorth really that important to the story that he warrants creating that huge white space under the Théophile Thoré-Bürger image?
Looks better, it was also an issue whether we even needed to see his photo here, seemed like undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph under In popular culture ends without citation. I assume it is is because it is just a summary of the book, but would still be god to cite that.
Hmm, yes, in articles about the books, films, etc. themselves, but this is rather tangential (this article is not about the book), so seems a bit out of place. Anyway, I won't press the issue, I'm not entirely up to snuff when it comes to media summaries here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the sources state so, mention the colour of the wall under descrition? It is a pretty dominant aspect of the painting. Now you only mention it under Physical characteristics.
  • In other painting FACs I've reviewed, background on the artist was placed before description of the painting itself, such as in The Dawn of Love (painting) and The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí). Now, this article starts somewhat abruptly, if we ignore the intro, without presenting the artist. You mention aspects of his life earlier in the article, so I went to read his biography section before I read the rest of the article for context. Could be good to get that out of the way.
  • The captions of the paintings in the galleries could state dates for context. Perhaps also the portraits.
  • "Fabritius was born in 1622" Why not full name at link here?
  • "Fabritius died very young" Why not just give his age?
  • "The bird itself was created with broad brush strokes, with only minor later corrections to its outline, while details, including the chain, are added with more precision." Why change in tense?
  • "painted by Jacopo de' Barbari in 1504" Since you present him in the earlier paragraph, perhaps only last name is needed here?
  • You use curly brackets instead of parenthesis by some dates, any reason for that?
  • Again, I won't press the issue, but I'm not sure what the following has to do with the subject of this article (the painting, not the movie): "The film was poorly received, with review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes giving an approval rating of 24%, and an average score of 4.5/10,[34] and Metacritic showing a weighted average score of 40 out of 100.[35]". Seems like undue weight.
  • "it was lost for more than two centuries" Only clearly stated in the intro.

Image review

  • Not sure the gallery in Subject makes a lot of sense - we've got a portrait of the artist, plus a modern-day photo of the bird, plus a set of other paintings that include the bird
  • I tend to agree, but all the images were requested by reviewers, are relevant and can't easily go elsewhere. I might play around with splitting into a couple of galleries
  • File:Abraham_Mignon_-_Fruit_Still-Life_with_Squirrel_and_Goldfinch_-_WGA15666.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolutioncrop.jpg, File:Raffaello_Sanzio_-_Madonna_del_Cardellino_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg, File:FabritiusViewOfDelft.jpg

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Seems to my inexpert eye to meet the FA criteria. Evidently comprehensive, well illustrated and thoroughly referenced. A few quibbles, which don't affect my support:

  • I might lose the editorial "just" in "died aged just 32";
  • the OED doesn't hyphenate "overpaint"
  • the citation for Jowell's article (ref 24) has three sets of quotation marks where one would expect an even number of them.
  • I could do without the false titles for "German-Dutch art historian Wilhelm Martin" (and is his nationality relevant here anyway?) and "Former actress Apolline Lacroix".
  • "5,500 francs" – it would be nice to have some indication of what this represented in euros or some such, though I know it can be very hard to give accurate equivalents, and I don't press the point.

A pleasure to read and to review. – Tim riley talk 18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tim, many thanks for review and support, all fixed except the currency. I tried on that but couldn't get a sensible answer. I might try again later, but these conversions, as you imply, are often challenged Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

A nice article on a picture I was unaware of before, but it is rather capitvating, for all its simplicity.

Description
  • "American art historian", "French art critic" (and later "English art historian"): are the nationalities important? (Particularly odd when we get to the stateless "art historian Wilhelm Martin", and various others without nationality!
Goldfinch
  • "2000 years": I think MOS:NUMERAL suggests to add a comma to four-figure numbers
Cultural references
  • I think some of this drifts a little too far away from the painting and you may want to consider trimming some of the ephemera (the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, the growth in members at the Frick collection, Girl With a Pearl Earring (should be lower case "w" too, btw)) are all points to consider, but if you decide to keep them, I won't demur. The whole para about the film and its Rancid Tomatoes rating should definitely be expunged – there are too many issues with RT as a metric at the best of times, but it really jars here and is a long way from the article's topic.
  • This is a bit trickier, since most of the stuff about the exhibitions was sourced by previous reviewers who asked for it to be added, so I can't really revert that, and is does show the upsurge in its fame with the release of the book. Although the book won several unmentioned awards, the Pulitzer is prestigious enough to be worth stating imho. However, I had misgivings myself about the commentary on the film, so cut to just the single sentence of basic info about the film, which has to be there, I think, since, as the film of the book, it's clearly relevant to an article about the painting. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

[edit]

Support Most interesting. and well done I confess I wasn't aware of the book and so forth.

  • "A common and colourful bird with a pleasant song, the goldfinch was a popular pet, and it could be taught simple tricks including lifting a thimble-sized bucket of water." I might cut the "it" before "could be taught".
  • The reference to the explosion in the lede seems a bit Easter-eggy to me. Since many readers get no further than the lede, I might expand enough so that the reader understands that this was something not merely personal to the artist, but a larger disaster. Also I'd mention the estimated death toll at some point.
  • added that destroyed much of the city and the death estimate
  • The first sentence in the fourth paragraph of "Style" could benefit from a split in my view.
  • "Following her death in 1643, he moved back to Middenbeemster until the early 1650s, then moving to Delft, where he joined the Guild of Saint Luke in 1652.[15]" I'm not sure "moving" is proper. I would simply omit the word. I'm not completely happy about the "moved back" "until the early 1650s".
  • I can't see beyond the paywall; does The Telegraph say the timing was a coincidence? It strikes me there are few coincidences in marketing.
  • What cynicism! (: The Telegraph does indeed say that, so it is at least a possibility, although I share your doubts
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, many thanks for the review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • For consistency, we need a publishing location for the Bürger book (ref 6).
  • For the older books, which don't have ISBNs, could we add OCLC numbers or similar to help locate them?
This isn't I think usual or necessary. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't essential, that's why it's a question. Some editors do it; I've been asked to consider it at FAC before. It's helpful for anyone looking for the books and probably good practice, but I've no problem if the nominator prefers not to do it. Sarastro (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5 cites Petria Noble in a work edited by Epco Runia. Presumably Noble wrote a chapter or section? If so, we should probably name this.
  • Sarastro1, I've had second thoughts about the Noble ref. I don't have direct access to the text, and I'm not totally sure that the reference is correct. I've therefore removed that sentence , which isn't critical, until I can confirm the citation, which is likely to take sometime. I've had no response from the Rijksmuseum, so best not to wait Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Goldfinch_(painting)/archive1&oldid=940912525"