Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Swimming Hole

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [1].

The Swimming Hole edit

Nominator(s): Raul654 (talk)

This is a little something I started last month after seeing it red-linked from Wikipedia:ACF Regionals answers. Modernist and JNW have been helping me to polish and expand it. Now I think it's ready to be a featured article. Raul654 (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Removed the above three refs; latter two can be seen as superfluous; will find another ref for dimensions. JNW (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 2 (Goodrich et. al.) the magazine title should be italicised and it needs a last access date.
Check. Goodrich ref is explained both in cite and under sources. JNW (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 6 (Aimee Brown price) magazine title should be italicised, and needs a last access date
Check Italicized and dated. JNW (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 8 (Figliano...) needs to have the bibliopgrahical information not in the link title. This is a journal, correct? Then the article title goes in quotation marks, the journal in italics, etc.
  • Current ref 9 (Martin A Berger...) needs to be formatted like a journal article. Needs a last access date also.
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "formatted like a journal article". Done? Raul654 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 11 (Sidney Kirkpatrick...) is a book, why does it have a last access date?
Check. JNW (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, shouldn't they be alphabetical?
Check. JNW (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 12, (Tom Lubbock..) is this a newspaper article? Needs a last access date, newspaper needs to be in italics.
  • Current ref 13 (Eakin's...) needs a last access date
Check. JNW (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 14 (Darrell Sewell..) is this a book? If so, title in italics, etc.
Check Italicized. JNW (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your references, you use a short form but some you don't, even when they are in the Sources section. You need to be consistent and use the short form all the time.
  • Current ref 16 (Grace Clueck...) newspaper titles go in italics.
Done. JNW (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "Sewell, Marc Simpson, 2001" Is it a book? If so, it's not listed in the sources, so I need more bilbiopgraphical information on it.
Check. Refers to 2001 book. I've simplified the various authors now as 'et al'. JNW (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 19 (William Innes Homer...) book title should be in italics
Check. Italics done. JNW (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 22 (Some Recently ...) is this a journal article? Author should be first, also. If it's a journal article, see above ... title in quotes, journal title in italics, needs last access date.
  • Current ref 24 (Foster, Kathleen A...) Shouldn't the author be first name first to be consistent with the rest of the refs? Needs a last access date also.
  • Current ref 25 (Doreen Bolger...) is a journal, same deal as above...
  • What is "Sewell, Kathleen A. Foster, 2001"?
Check. Refers to 2001 book. I've simplified the various authors now as 'et al'. JNW (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New problem - current ref 1 (Doreeen Bolger...) needs a last access date. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Raul654 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sketch of harry thomas eakins.jpeg - "Scan from art book" is not the best description of the source from which this image was scanned. WP:IUP suggests that we provide a full bibliographic citation for sources; note that it says "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information)".
    • Done, we decided to lose this image until a better source shows itself...Modernist (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note - I think I've found the source from which this picture was scanned. I'll know more tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, changed one..the others are okay...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Finally, my chance has come to review an article by the FA director himself. As someone with no prior knowledge of the topic, I must say that the page reads well overall. Here is an initial round of suggestions.

  • Perhaps move reference 1 after the dash. Not sure whether the rules on placing cites after punctuation apply to dashes, though.
  • Title and composition: two identical Mill Creek links here. I think the latter can be chopped.
  • Studies: "recent scholarship has proposed that marks incised onto the canvas and later covered by paint evidence that Eakins made use of projected photographs." Not sure if "evidence" is the right word; I think that "indicate" would read better.
Done. JNW (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All six men appear in the sketch, as does the dog and the background foliage." Should this be "as do"? The dog and the foliage are plural when put together. I believe "does" is singular, but am not entirely sure on that one.
Done. JNW (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provenance: Is it Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts or Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts? The former is used in this section, while the latter is used in the lead.
Done. JNW (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The $10 million figure needs a non-breaking space, like the one I left here.
Done. Raul654 (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some inconsistencies exist in the references. Most don't have access dates; one has the access date, and publisher, as part of the title. Also, The New York Times and The Independent, as printed publications, need italics. And give ref 16 an en dash.

I'll be happy to support this after these are responded to. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all objections have been resolved. Raul654 (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're right. Support. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Support (as VA project member and copy editor during the pre-FAC drive) with two comments. I'd be in favour for a page move to Swimming (painting) per the reasoning below, and I still think the lead is over cited. Otherwise very fine work all. Ceoil (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its very good, but can ye cite the first two captions in the Title and composition section (statements are "evidences the influence of a classical conceit" & "Eakins may have seen this painting while studying in Paris.") Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The caption statements repeat cited claims made in that section of the article. Hope that's sufficient. JNW (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be safer to duplicate the refs (I know, I know). Ceoil (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The opening para tells us that the painting is an important work, but not why. Ceoil (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cited the captions--I think it's overkill, but if the guidelines call for it... JNW (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though I do agree with you, I'm just playing devils advocate here. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the lead have 8 citations; if the statments are developed in the article body there is no need to cite so early (quotes are the exception, I think). I rereading now and making minor ce's.
    • There are some surprising declarative statements in the lead that are cited; like Eakins took advantage of an exception to the generally prudish Victorian attitude to nudity, in that, for men and boys, swimming naked was widely accepted that needed a cite..although the original statement didn't specify men and boys, just swimming naked. Modernist (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Eakins's choices for the composition were notable in several respects" - and only two respects following. Many critics have noted that each figure is positioned or angled so that no genitalia are visible - Is this unusual / notable.
    There's six naked guys in the picture and there's not a single penis visible. That's not an accident. Or as Bolger put it, Eakins gave them a "metaphorical fig leaf". That's certainly relevant. Raul654 (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I sure in the 19th century simillarly coy pics were not unusual. Either way ye need to be more explicit about this. Were deptctions of naked guys common in high / pop art, did they usually get it out, who by, which schools etc. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are assuming academic artists of the period were more prudish than they actually were. Bolger 14 says that artists of the period liked painting nudes because of its challenge, but could find few scenarios in contemporary life to depict them and that Eakins had to search hard to find one. Bolger 15 says that in 1882 Fairman Rogers (then head of the PA Academy of Fine Arts) revised the PA Academy of Fine Art's curriculum to emphasize nude paintings. In the school circular, he wrote "The course of study is believe to be more thorough than that of any existing school. Its basis is the nude human figure." Does that satisfy you? Raul654 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    PS - I've added a few more facts about the compositional choices. Raul654 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    pps I'm not assuming anything is my point. I just want ye to be more explicit in yer reasoning. I'm not questioning the validity, I'm just drawing you out to state what is obvious to you but vague to the general reader. The article is very close otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a little trouble with the "Eakins's choices for the composition were notable in several respects" passage, too, though I'm not sure of the solution. The opening, that of the diver, is such a strong start that the subsequent points seem too prosaic. The hidden genitalia are not so unusual; Eakins's contemporaries got around that by not painting the male entirely nude. It's just that given his leap of painting so many male nudes here, it seems unusual. I think if that point is to be made, maybe it needs heavier artillery, along the lines of what is mentioned under 'interpretation' re: how he broke with tradition. The points about the reflections are interesting, but not so noteworthy by comparison. All told, it looks very good. JNW (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fleshed the passage out a bit (pun intended?), and I think it holds together better. Further improvements welcomed! JNW (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Took out the "several respects" claim. The text did only idicates two respects, which makes me wonder if five aspects are missing. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten that line again, so that it refers to composition but also to other appropriate themes. JNW (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What digs at me now is the following passage, that of In 2008, the art critic Tom Lubbock described Eakins's painting as "a classic of American painting... it's great, but I wonder if the section has expanded so that it now breaks the flow. My question is whether there might be a better place for it. If not, I'm not averse to keeping it where it is. JNW (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility would be to include a detail of the painting, using Lubbock's words as a caption, possibly in the final section, in place of one of the current images. Any thought? And if there's a concurrence, does anyone know how to do the photoshopping? JNW (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this article needs another picture (it's already got quite a lot), but if you need photoshopping, I can do it for you. Raul654 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's got plenty already, that's why I was suggesting moving it under interpretation, in place of one of your photos of the lake, primarily because I think the Lubbock quote would 'finish' the article nicely. Since you contributed both the quote and the present-day photos, your input on this is most valuable. JNW (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's finished now, and that at this point we're pulling at loose threads ;)
More seriously, I'm OK with removing one of the present day lake pics. I don't have strong feelings toward the Lubbock quote - it could reasonably go in the intro or in the interpretation section. Raul654 (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may very well be right re: loose threads--is there a Wikipedia essay on that? I was having fun with the idea, as more window dressing, but I'm content to leave that thread hanging. We can mull it over. However, I do think the title question is a good one--besides it being a pain to change it now, wouldn't it make sense for it to be called Swimming? JNW (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I see you've begun this: [2]. Well done! JNW (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the title - first, you're right about it being a pain in the butt. There's quite a lot of links to this article using its current title. Worse, there's already an article called Swimming, so if we do rename it, we'd end up having to rename it to something like Swimming (painting). Second, while 'Swimming' is arguably more accurate in that it more closely corresponds to the artist's original intentional, 'The Swimming Hole' is by far and away the most common name for the work. So - all things being equal, a good case could be made for either name. But all things are not equal, because 'Swimming' would be difficultly to rename the article to - and needlessly so.
As for the Agnew clinic, yea, I think that might be my next project, if I can find a good source or two. :) Raul654 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah a detail with Lubbock's quote would be a good move, IMO. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So long as it doesn't focus only on the standing figure's backside... JNW (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Lith ot Ty, would be my best suggestions here. Ceoil (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped a note to Tyrenius. In the meantime, the move to the opening looks like an improvement. Thanks. I also think you raised a question which ought to invite discussion here: if the painting is now entitled Swimming again, should not the article's title reflect that? JNW (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Interested in the responces, JNW. Ceoil (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am in favor of a name change...Swimming (painting) would work...Modernist (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to make sense. JNW (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are some sentences that are entirely quotations with no attribution, which I find awkward. I think it's one thing to complete a thought using an unattributed clause—for example, "Each of the men is looking at the water, 'apparently lost in a contemplative moment.'"—but in the cases I'm talking about, the article falls into someone else's voice for an extended period, and we don't even know whose! Examples:
    • " 'In both expositions, it apparently garnered a resounding critical silence. During the following three decades, likely no one beyond the painter's immediate circle of family and friends saw the painting. Nor is there any extant anecdotal or pictorial data to testify to the painter's sense of the work during these years... The painting simply failed to register in any significant, public way during Eakins' lifetime.' "
    • In this case, I don't know if the quotation mark is in error--there's no ending quotation mark--but an ellipsis follows it. " 'The range of surviving images suggests that Eakins was exploring several possible topics involving groups of male nudes, rather than posing figures for particular compositions... But none of the poses seen in the extant swimming photographs appear in the painting, nor are the viewpoints, framing, or composition of the landscape in those photographs (which are taken from three different spots) exactly repeated in the final composition of the oil. The divergence between these sets of images may hint at lost or destroyed pictures, or it may tell us that the photographs came first, before Eakins's mental image had crystallized, and before the execution of his first oil sketch.[27]"
  • –Outriggr § 06:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the last example I've added the missing quotation marks to the end of the cited text. These are long passages in which writers are quoted, but each example has been cited, attributing authorship. Would you suggest shortening these, naming the authors more explicitly in the article ("Witherspoon notes that the painting...") or re-writing some or all of the text in our own words? I think these are Raul's contributions, so his thoughts would be welcome, too. JNW (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that Outrigger is referring to quotations from secondary sources which are a full sentence or longer. (FWIW, I'm planning to add the text of Coates's rejection letter soon - another primary source). There are three such quotations in the article, which I don't consider excessive. They are "The range of surviving images ... oil sketch", "In both expositions ... Eakins' lifetime", and "The restoration revealed relatively ... landscape elements". I added these as quotations because I didn't feel comfortable that I could paragraph them without repeating them nearly word-for-word or otherwise modifying the meaning. I've gone ahead and pruned down the first of these quotes. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed down the first quote, moved the secondinto a footnote, and added explicit attribution to the third. Raul654 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if I tried to trim further? You are welcome to revert if I mave a hash of it and loose meaning. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go right ahead. Raul654 (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cut Coates's politeness and apologia; the Eakins is ok as it stands - its to the point and inciteful. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The prose of this article leaves something to be desired. Let me analyze two passages to illustrate the kinds of issues that need to be addressed:

First paragraph of the lead

  • The Swimming Hole is a painting of 1884–85 by the American artist Thomas Eakins (1844–1916), in the collection of the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. The painting was executed in oil on canvas and measures 70 × 92 cm (27 × 36 inches). - Rather than saying "is a painting of" and then repeating "the painting" in the next sentence, it would be better to say "The Swimming Hole is an oil painting by the American artist Thomas Eakins (1844-1916), in the collection of the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. Finished in 1885, it measures 70 × 92 cm (27 × 36 inches)" (or something along those lines).
  • The Swimming Hole is regarded as a masterpiece of American painting. According to the critic Doreen Bolger it is "perhaps Eakins's most accomplished rendition of the nude figure", and has been called "the most finely designed of all his outdoor pictures". - The quotations that follow "regarded as a masterpiece of American painting" do not explain this claim - the quotations explain why it is one of Eakins's masterpieces.
    • The quotations are not there to explain the "masterpiece" claim - that's what ref #1 (to Bolger VII) is there for. The quotations simply expand on the theme. Raul654 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that is precisely the problem - nothing explains the "masterpiece" claim. Why is this painting considered a masterpiece of American painting? The reader is just left hanging. The paragraph suddenly moves on to a new topic - why this is a masterpiece among Eakins's works. Awadewit (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The articles masterpiece claim reads clear to me, I confess that I do not understand why it is not crystal clear to you. It reads perhaps Eakins's most accomplished rendition of the nude figure",[2] and has been called "the most finely designed of all his outdoor pictures I think that does describe what a masterpiece by Eakins would be...whose oeuvre was the human figure. Modernist (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the Renaissance the human body had been considered the most challenging subject to depict in art, yet for Eakins this picture offered an opportunity to display his mastery of the human form. - The meaning of this sentence is unclear - does it mean "During the nineteenth century, the human body was considered the most challenging subject to depict in art" or does it mean "Since the Renaissance, the human body has been considered the most challenging subject to depict in art"?
    • The answer is, at least to me, obviously the latter. I don't understand how you can read the quoted sentence and think it's the former. Raul654 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The version in the article is confusing because of the verb tense. "Had been" suggests that from the Renaissance until the nineteenth century, the human body had been considered the most challenging subject, but that it is no longer considered so. However, the crucial "nineteenth century" bit is missing from the sentence. If you mean to say that "since the Renaissance" (meaning "up to the present day"), you should use "has been". Awadewit (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I've switched it to "has been". Raul654 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''Since the Renaissance the human body had been considered the most challenging subject to depict in art, yet for Eakins this picture offered an opportunity to display his mastery of the human form. - "yet" is used incorrectly
  • The work's depiction of six men skinny dipping represented a subject—the study of the nude—which was the centerpiece of Eakins's teaching program at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. - convoluted
    • Fixed by slight re-arranging. Raul654 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have started the lead this way:
The Swimming Hole (1884–85) is a painting by the American artist Thomas Eakins (1844–1916). It is executed in oil on canvas, and resides in the collection of the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. The painting depicts six men skinny dipping in a pristine lake, and is regarded as a masterpiece of American painting.[1]
(Let me know if I'm still wanted around here.)  HWV258  02:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph of "Interpretation"

  • Though the painting has been viewed as a platonic vision of the male nude seen unselfconsciously in a natural setting, by the 1940s some American writers were beginning to see Eakins's work, and specifically The Swimming Hole, as having homoerotic implications. - It is not entirely clear who is having what views here - the first part of the sentence is unnecessarily passive and the second part simply mentions "American writers". I'm sure not all American writers felt this way. Because this is such a specific view, it is worth listing the names of the writers.
    • I've added a ref (#62) containing specific writers and works. Raul654 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this respect, particular attention has been paid to the compositional prominence of the standing figure's buttocks, which has been interpreted as suggestive of "homoerotic interests". - "in this respect" is unnecessary; the passive voice is unnecessary again; who is putting forth this interpretation (note the unattributed quotation)?
    • I've dropped the "In this respect" and switched the sentence from passive to active voice. The person putting forth the quote is Adams, as given in the citation at the end of the sentence. Raul654 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been proposed that The Swimming Hole marked the beginning of homoerotic imagery in American art. - This is a bold claim - in the passive voice! Who is proposing this?
    • Good question...Art historian Jonathan Weinberg in his book Male Desire: The Homoerotic in American Art...Modernist (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eakins left a record simultaneously provocative and ambiguous on matters of sex. Based on the same visual evidence, that of the photographs, oil sketches, and the finished painting of swimmers, art historians have drawn markedly varying conclusions as to the artist's intent. - "markedly varying" meaning the two interpretations offered here - classical and homoerotic? Those don't seem that different to me, especially since classical often bleeds into homoerotic, especially in nineteenth- and twentieth-century art.
    • Actually it seems to be an accurate statement - Adams interprets Eakins as an over the top gay artist obsessed with anal sex while most other art historians have varying degrees of differing opinions...some like Goodrich saying he was just a master of the nude, with little implications into his personal sex life...markedly differing opinions given the same evidence..Even if you are correct in pointing out that the classical often bleeds into the homoerotic, the markedly varied differences would still be there in the multiplicity of interpretations given the ambiguity of the record...Modernist (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that an uninvolved copyeditor go over the prose carefully as well as someone familiar with the MOS (I saw a lot of little MOS problems, like WP:DASH and whatnot). Epbr123 is a MOS guru. Awadewit (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I committed some of the aforementioned offenses; though greater specificity is requested, and would surely be of benefit, all of the statements are supported by cites. I could go in and attempt to clean these up, but am struck by the suggestion to have an 'uninvolved copyeditor' go over this. Please do. JNW (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relax. Mos is a tough bag, but Epbr123 is most helpful. A polite request and likely s/he will help out; that editor is very much one of the hidden heroes of FAC, and just capabale of wonders. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very much agreed re: Epbr. I'm done. JNW (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Epbr has done his (her?) pass through this article now. Raul654 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found a copyeditor yet? Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Tony1 to take a look. Raul654 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drop me a line on my talk page after the copyedit is finished and I'll revisit. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing note - William Innes Homer (Eakins' most distinguished living biographer) is a professor at my University. I've emailed him and asked him for feedback on the article. Raul654 (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just got off the phone with Homer. He said it's a "good piece in general" and suggested fixing a couple of minor factual errors. (Calling Doreen Bolger a critic instead of art historian, and calling Eakins's Feb 15 1886 letter his resignation letter when in fact he resigned on Feb 9) Raul654 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know what "skinny dipping" is but I have never gone "skinning dipping" - but seriously, how about just "swimming naked"? Graham Colm Talk 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Skinny dipping" versus "bathing naked" seems to be an American/British english thing (Americans say the former, Brits say the latter). I talked with Yomangan about it, and "swimming naked" seems to be a compromise that everyone can accept. That's what the article says now. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the Gallery: Eakins's students skinning dipping in Dove Lake, c. 1883–84 the others. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, "skinning dipping" - not skinny dipping. That is a typo that no one caught :) Raul654 (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except me, best of luck with the FAC :-) Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this image is on the cover of a book of Walt Whitman's poetry that I have had for many years. I find I keep returning to this article and each time I realise just how good it is. I am particularly impressed with the research (not original of course, but excellent) that has been undertaken. And, to find I can read an article three times or more without getting bored once, is my definition of engaging prose. At first I thought the amount of images was a little excessive, but no; each one adds to this comprehensive and fascinating article. I'm going to print this one and tuck it in the back of the Waltman book. I like to imagine the future when someone else picks up the book and discovers this treasure. Graham Colm Talk 18:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had a quick go at the lead, which I thought was pretty good already (we'd be pleased if all FAC leads were as good). I'll go through the rest soon. Tony (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just lovely. I made a few minor punctuation tweaks. I'd like to see the presentation of long quotations standardized (the Bregler quote uses blockquote, while the lengthy Coates and Eakins quotes are presented in boxes with {{quotation}}). Maralia (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with a couple comments, nothing major. Beautifully written.
    • "It has been noted that the reclining figure is a paraphrasing of the Dying Gaul, and is juxtaposed with the far less formal self-depiction by the artist." Can we change this to active voice and tell who noted? I can click the citation and see Sewell but we don't know if Sewell noted it or he wrote about someone else noting it.
    • "It is not unlikely ..." Not a huge fan of that phrase. It reminds me of when my daughter tells me I'm "not wrong".
    • I favor "Eakins'" over "Eakins's".
--Laser brain (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on picture size. It says '92.3 cm' which looks odd to me. I would put '923 mm'. Unfortunately, paintings on Wikipedia don't appear to have any consistency when it comes to formatting size units. Some don't have metric values at all. Lightmouse (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the ones that do have measurements, all of them that I have seen use centimeters, not millimeters. Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. For values that are in tenths of a cm, then it seems to make sense to use mm. However, the use of cm may fit with the general precision of larger paintings. So that brings me on to the matter of precision. If I were to measure a painting of that size and age, inside or outside a frame, I would probably expect precision to be 5 or 10 mm which would give us values of 920 mm or 925 mm (or cm equivalent). However, the metric dimensions are almost certainly conversions from the 1/8 inch non-metric dimensions and implying a precision of around 3 mm. If the non-metric value is the original, then can you check the arithmetic please, I get 924 mm. Lightmouse (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most museums seem to use cm or inches on pictures this size...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have changed the metric value from 92.3 cm to 92.4 cm to suit a conversion from the non-metric value. I don't trust the other values but I haven't checked them. Lightmouse (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on language. Some of the language seems arcane and sometimes less than plain. For example, I think the term 'fellows' sounds out of date. I don't believe the claim for 'uniqueness' is true, if it means it is the only painting with naked men outdoors. It may be true but I would be surprised. The phrase 'Each of the men is looking at the water' doesn't seem to be true for the one diving and the one swimming. I hope you don't mind these comments. Lightmouse (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the term fellows is from a direct quote from Tom Lubbock's February 2008 article, that is referenced.
    • There really are plenty of other paintings with naked male bathers - Cezanne for one; which was referenced..no claims of uniqueness here..although it is said to be unique for its time in American art. Thanks for your comments...Modernist (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. I see now that 'fellows' is a quote. So 'unique for its time' sounds to me like 'first time'... Would I be right in concluding that it was the first time that the naked male form was shown in an outdoor setting in American art? Lightmouse (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, to my knowledge an important well known American painter like Eakins was considered to be breaking new ground there...by painting naked men swimming together outside..Modernist (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I suspected, there were more errors in the dimensions. There were also inconsistencies in whether each value had a unit label (cm or in) or whether the unit label was only after a pair of values. I believe I have corrected both these issues. The format of dimensions is still inconsistent: the main picture puts metric first and non-metric second after a comma. The other pictures put non-metric first and metric in parentheses. Parentheses are a better indication of which is the original value and I think the format in the main picture should be changed. Unfortunately, the comma format is hard-coded into the Infobox_Painting template. The painting template is also designed in such a way that it prevents the convert function being used and that is a shame because we have seen examples of manual conversion errors right here. I see that other people have suggested that the template should be modified. Please support the request for changes at Template_talk:Infobox_Painting#This_template_is_not_compatible_with_convert. Lightmouse (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (I made some minor edits to the first versions, & on talk) Near support, but some comments above still may need dealing with, & like many above I am chary of some of the statements placing the nudity in a historical context:
  • It would be as well to mention that drawing from the nude figure (live or casts of classical statues etc) had been the basis of the training of nearly all fine art painters for several centuries past, originating in the Italian Renaissance. It was no doubt the "most challenging subject" but it was a challenge all painters were used to facing. Many, like Eakins' contemporary Burne-Jones habitually painted all their figures nude first, then added the clothes.
  • The caption to Arcadia says: "A painting which, like The Swimming Hole, evidences the influence of a classical conceit.[22]" which is a round-about way of saying "gives its subject a classical setting" or something (given the instruments). but how does 'The Swimming Hole evidence the influence of a classical conceit'? "Conceit" seems the wrong word here, whatever is meant.
  • "The depiction of someone diving into water was nearly unprecedented in the history of Western art" - Ho-hum! It doesn't help that the earliest outstanding large Western painting we actually have (the Paestum Diver) shows just exactly this (and with penis flying free)! There are actually many more minor examples from naval battles, shipwreck scenes, background figures (Icarus in the Landscape with the Fall of Icarus) & so on, though as the subject of a major work it is certainly very rare. I think the phrasing should be toned down.
  • "Prior to the mid-19th century, the subject of the male figure in Western art had long been reserved for classical subject matter. In the 19th century it was not unusual for boys and men to swim without clothing in public, but there was no precedent for this subject in American painting.[48] Although there was an informal convention for multiple-figure compositions featuring female nudes, such paintings were exhibited in saloons rather than galleries; Eakins altered the gender, and presented the subject as fine art.[49]" - Needs a "nude" at the start. I wasn't sure if "saloon" was meant to be "salon", but I guess not - it needs a link really, although the poor Western saloon seems to be all we have. The 3rd sentence needs extra clarification to stress that (if true) this was specifically an American issue - European galleries were already full of "multiple-figure compositions featuring female nudes" - like the two Titian poesies, which have been all but continuously in galleries since 1720-odd (see Orleans Collection).
  • I wouldn't rename it - the change will no doubt take many years to percolate through to public awareness. If renamed it should go to Swimming (Eakins painting) I think.

Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As an aside, I mentioned the novelty of nude male swimmers in American art of the period, not in the rest of the world of art, of Eakins time; that's why I linked the Cezanne bathers on the Talk page.. Certainly the nude - male and female has been treated in every period from the Ancients forward and I agree there is no particular franchise that Eakins had on the issue...as to the uniqueness of the diver in the painting; he's about to enter the water and Eakins does capture an almost cinematic feeling of movement. Although Icarus has sped by us too fast in the Bruegel to appreciate his dive and the wonderful figure in the Tomb of the Diver is in near perfect silhouette...Modernist (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Icarus is "diving"? That puts a new spin on his story. Yomanganitalk 10:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Eakins' guy's technique is nothing to write home about either :) Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either he is a sloppy diver or the painting of the rapidly moving body is error prone (see Horse_gait#Gallop). Incidentally, I noticed that five of the six men are arranged to form a visual triangle. But I couldn't see any reference to that but then I saw the phrase "The composition is pyramidal". This reinforces my earlier comment that the language is not plain English. I suggest replacing that phrase with "The painting contains a visual triangle in the centre made up of five of the six men." Or something like that. The more I look at the text, the more I notice that it contains useful information that is concealed because of the extra effort required to convert it into plain English. Lightmouse (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a name change to Swimming (painting) makes sense because most of the recent books on Eakins refer to the painting as Swimming as does the museum that houses it...At this point it would seem like a natural move..Modernist (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well, maybe, but it certainly needs "Eakins" in there (or "Thomas Eakins"). No doubt others have used the title (did he for any other works?), & with many people looking for a "hole" .... Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, all of the quotes and most of the titles of cited references in the article refer to The Swimming Hole. I'd leave it where it is and put in redirects for the other titles. No predicting what name will be en vogue in a few years time. Yomanganitalk 10:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have no expertise in this area, but it's an ambitious article done very well and a motivator for others to do the same. And I think the article name should stay as it is. My only quibble would be the quote box at the end of the lead section; I haven't seen that usage anywhere else, and it was a bit visually jarring to me. On the other hand, it does prepare the reader for the visual pattern the rest of the article will take. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I didn't find any problems except for there not being enough cats. :P But seriously, I didn't find any problems with the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Well done to Raul and Awadewit. I enjoyed reading it. Tony (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lots of good stuff in it. Some of the useful messages are obscured by grand or arcane language. I would like to see more use of plain English so that it is more accessible to non-specialists. But I still vote support. Lightmouse (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Bolger, vii
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Swimming_Hole&oldid=1192288649"