Talk:Arnold Comes of Age

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arnold Comes of Age/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AleatoryPonderings (talk · contribs) 19:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Specific comments

• " … he became one of the leading regionalists of the country". In what sense is or can a regionalist be "leading"?
  • as in prominent, changed. Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• "despite the affection that Wood showed him, did not reciprocate". Are you saying that Pyle did not reciprocate at all, or just not in a romantic way? It seems odd that Wood would make a painting for someone who didn't act at all affectionately towards him.
  • the heterosexual Pyle epitomized the type of man Wood continued to fall for, over and over, throughout his life. In all of his intimate but unrequited relationships with his young proteges - not entirely certain but the implication of romance seems clear here, changed. Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• "holding a distant look" - "holding" reads a little oddly. If it just means "having" or "with", that might be better, but I wasn't quite sure if it instead means "retaining deliberately".
  • changed Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• "as well as a general transition between two states" - does Cheles make the connection explicit between "two states" and Arnold's adolescence and adulthood?
  • no; [quote about death and rebirth in della Francesca's painting] ... He may have based Arnold Comes of Age on Piero’s fresco precisely because, like the earlier work, it deals with the theme of a transition from one condition to another. Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• "for the subject that is not idolized …". This clause is slightly ambiguous between Arnold being idolized and the love being idolized (though idk if an inanimate thing like love can be idolized). Which do you mean?
  • love, but I'm not sure how to rephrase this - Dietz essentially says that the love was not depicted as fabulous or extravagant, but instead down-to-earth, personal, familiar... thoughts? Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    • This is my compromise version but feel free to revert/change if you disagree. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• "in their idyll landscape" - did you pipe this because Dietz doesn't explicitly say Eden? It reads oddly this way.
  • Dietz says "paradise" but not, AFAICT, Eden. I've changed it since it's clear; my thought process here was to evoke a similarity between the painting (the landscape looks nice) and Eden (where it is literally paradise), but that's not necessary or - as seen here - very clear. Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Wood chose to sign his name beside Pyle's beltbuckle, perhaps so the two men could be linked together forever" - why does signing beside a beltbuckle make a more permanent link than a signature elsewhere?
  • good catch! I didn't think of this. The source says, Wood signed his name next to Arnold's belt (probably crafted by Wood), featuring Arnold's initials, so that, at least in his painting, they could be together forever - it's because their names are together. I realize now this wording is too close to the source so I've made some adjustments Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• "on the figure's shirt" - I take it the figure is Arnold, yes?
  • yes - but I am wary to say that the figure is Arnold for reasons I cannot entirely articulate. I'll change it to Arnold, and if I still feel this way in the future, I'll leave a talk page note with my reasoning Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• " although critic Faye Hirsch says this interpretation allows researchers to make biographical claims without evidence". This is provocative but confusing. Whose biography are we talking about—Arnold's or Grant's? Wouldn't the painting itself be evidence for the relevant biographical claim?
  • Wood; made some adjustments. I've missed the mark by being too strong with my paraphrasing - Hirsch says such an approach liberates researchers from the restraints imposed by scant—even nonexistent—biographical evidence. I read your comments pretty soon after you posted them, and this one stuck with me - of course it is provocative, and it is provocative because it's not entirely accurate. Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• "made him present his paintings of the Midwest within the state". This is confusing - did he care about Iowa specifically or the Midwest generally? Could he have shown the painting in Illinois or Wisconsin?
  • yes, this is hard to write. He could have shown the painting anywhere -- including Paris -- but he chose to do it in Iowa. Why is this? The source says something like: His dedication to regionalism required him to show it in the same locale in which it represents (the Midwest). How do you think I should go forward with adjusting this? Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Special:Diff/1062659466 is my suggestion, which I think captures what Rasmussen is saying? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Wood's painting was shown in 1940 alongside Stone City, Iowa and John B. Turner, Pioneer." Can you source the claim that John B. Turner, Pioneer is also by Wood? Without context it's hard to see why we are interested in the latter. Also, where was it shown?
  • I'm having trouble finding where it was shown. The source says "In the following year's show", which in context I believe to be a show of the NE art association, but it's hard to determine whether it is actually of the art association or just in relation to it. I've made an adjustment so that, at least, we know it's in Nebraska. As for John B. Turner, the source renders it as "John B. Turner-Pioneer", which I do not believe to be the most common rendering. (And it says it's his - three paintings were exhibited by a regional artist ... Grant Wood ... "Stone City", "Arnold Comes of Age", and "John B. Turner-Pioneer".) Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• " It has since become one of the most valuable pieces within the permanent collection." Whose permanent collection? You say it was bought by the Nebraska Art Association but is displayed at the Sheldon Museum of Art - is the Sheldon Museum affiliated with the Nebraska Art Association?
  • Good point. I didn't know this, but the Sheldon holds (much of? all of?) the artwork of the association, so I've made an adjustment. Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Overall

• Well written
  • Yes, except for the few bits I needed clarification on above.
• Verifiable with no original research
  • My source spot-checks revealed only one potential issue: I don't think Doe mentions craqueleure, although maybe the phenomenon is just described in different terms? All the sources used are either reputable journals or museum sources (although weirdly the Sheldon Art Museum seems to have mis-cataloged the painting?).
    • I don't understand much art terminology, so maybe I'm wrong in using the term. When Doe says Before treatment, widespread crackles, heavy, discolored varnish and Crackle so deep that it penetrated, my understanding is that this is craqueleure. What do you mean by mis-catalog? Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Your reading of "widespread crackles" seems right. Re mis-catalog: the Sheldon's entry indexes the painting as "Wood, Arnold", which to me looks like it's combining Wood's and Pyle's names. Maybe it's just their cataloging system. In any event, no problem with using it as a source—the museum where a painting is held is presumably a reliable source about the painting. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Broad in its coverage
  • Short article but that's no problem in itself. The only think I noticed in a quick review of other potential sources is that other critics have contextualized Arnold as a part of Wood's oeuvre in a way this article doesn't do at present. The best additional sources I found were the following. The first two are on the Internet Archive; you may need to sign up for an account to read all the relevant bits.
    • [1] (most extensive coverage)
    • [2]
    • [3]
    • There appears to be some coverage in this substantial exhibit catalog but idk what your Google Books preview will look like. Might also be in a library near you? See OCLC 1132638978. Obviously adding material from an expensive, non-digital book is not at all a condition of this being GA-class.
      • This last book is very interesting. I'll see what I can do. There is a library with it here (it's held by the Sheldon, whodathunkit) and available on an appointment-only basis, so while it's very unlikely that I'll see it by the time this nomination is completed, I do plan on taking a look. Thanks. Urve (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    • For some reason the painting is on the cover of this edition of Malcolm by James Purdy. May just be a coincidence?
• Neutral
  • Yes. Good summaries of the somewhat divergent critical perspectives on this painting.
• Stable
  • Yes.
• Illustrated
  • Yes. Is there a way to increase the size of the image of the painting a bit? I know if you blow it up too much it collides with the della Francesca but right now it's really small.
    • I've made it larger - if it's still too small, feel free to adjust the image_upright parameter. I dislike it rolling over into the next section, but that's just me. It shouldn't collide with della Francesca for modest increases in size. Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Overall, this should be GA-ready without too much additional effort. Nice work. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, AleatoryPonderings. Made some inline comments above. I'll come back to the further sources - as far as I remember, though it's been a while, many of them are just saying that it's homoerotic & why they think this, and I didn't feel compelled to include them. But I'll look again with an eye to writing more, because the painting deserves more said about it. Urve (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Great, Urve. Passed. Great work—I love articles on obscure literary or artistic works because it's amazing how much you can say about them if you look hard enough. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Arnold Comes of Age, a homoerotic painting from 1930, is similar to a fifteenth-century piece from the Italian Renaissance?
  • ALT1: ... that Arnold Comes of Age, a painting by Grant Wood, shows an "obvious love" for his assistant and protégé?
  • ALT2: ... that two nude bathers in Arnold Comes of Age were "nearly obliterated"?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Square pyramidal number
  • Comment: New hooks/modifications welcome, and happy new year.

Improved to Good Article status by Urve (talk). Self-nominated at 08:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

• Happy new year, Urve! A well-done article with fantastic hooks. DYK-eligible, free of plagiarism, sourced and neutral. Hooks are sourced and of appropriate length; ALT2 made me laugh but all are quite good. Well done! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

ALT2 to T:DYK/P4