Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leuchtenberg Gallery/archive1

Leuchtenberg Gallery

Leuchtenberg Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Leuchtenberg Gallery/archive1
• Featured list candidates/Leuchtenberg Gallery/archive2

Nominator(s): Fram (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive and complete overview of the collection of one of the early notable museums in Europe (as in publicly accessible, catalogued art collections), with additional information on what happened to the artworks afterwards where possible. As far as I can see at Wikipedia:Featured lists, there is no comparable FL at the moment, so this would be something new! This is my first FL nomination (a selfnom), and I know that prose writing is not my forte, so I expect some (or many) remarks on the text and contents of the lead, which I'll try to fix of course. All remarks on the actual list are welcome as well of course. Fram (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment: the names of the artists need to be sortable by surname, not first name, so you need to use {{sortname}} for them. Also, and perhaps counter-intuitively to those unused to sortable list conventions, all names in a sortable table are linked on each occurrence (since the table doesn't display in the same order each time you resort it) - although, in fact, using "sortname" will ensure this anyway. Bencherlite^Talk 10:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks, will do (may take some time obviously). Fram (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Done! Fram (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick note I'd look to make the tables consistent in column widths from section to section. Also, you have references for some specific facts, e.g. some of the auction prices, but not all of them. Where are those which aren't directly referenced sourced? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to add sources for all of them. For the table width, I don't have an easy solution (apart from making it one big table). I'll have a look to see if there is a good solution, all suggestions are welcome. Fram (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Both done, the tables needed some table markup in percentages I wasn't previously aware of. All suggestions for further improvements welcome. Fram (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose right now a few starting notes.... Is the collection of artwork this seems to be listing commonly referred to as the "Luchtenberg Gallery"? For instance, the collection at the Musée du Louvre is held at List of works in the Louvre. Is there a possibility that this should be more of a GA with considerably more effort applied to the gallery itself? Avoid single-sentence paragraphs. In Safari, the images on the right hand side push the tables down so there's a great deal of white space. What does "First noted" mean? Is it "The first appearance of a work in an older catalogue of the Gallery has also been indicated"? Make it clearer. Avoid blank cells where possible, so place an en-dash or something similar since blank cells just appears as if something's missing. Notes columns rarely need to be sortable, since they're free text the reader won't gain anything useful from making them alphabetical in order. How does "Disputed, but often considered to be a genuine Rembrandt" sort in the "attribution" col? Probably best to be by "Rembrandt" and have the full text of the "disputed" in the notes, or something similar. Why not link "Hermitage"? "sold at" or "Sold at"? Consistency. If "First noted" is unknown, say it's unknown Consider having a single table and including the nationality of the painter as a column. Far too many blank cells, what are they supposed to mean? "Not in the 1852 catalogue" -> then where? Foreign-language sources should have a {{lang}} parameter. Single-page references should use only "p." not "pp." Check for correct use of en-dash (per WP:DASH) in references. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC) I don't think I can easily solve all of these, so a few replies at least (and thanks for the time and constructive criticism anyway): Yes, the museum and collection both are often referred to as the Leuchtenberg Gallery: ref 1 indicates that this was the official name in English at the time[1], with e.g. also the 1837 "A handbook for travellers in Southern Germany" calling it the "Leuchtenberg Gallery of Pictures"[2]. It is also referred to as the Leuchtenberg collcetion, but that discusses the whole collection; this article focuses specifically on the Gallery, i.e. the public display of the collection in Munich until 1852, making it an important early museum and collection. But any suggestions for better titles are welcome of course. I was thinking of adding the images as a column to the table, but that will create some very large rows of course. Will have to think about this. DONE First noted = first included in one of the catalogues of the Gallery. I'll make the notes column unsortable, no problem. DONE. Indeed, the "Rembrandt" line needs rewriting to take the sorting into account. DONE. Hermitage (and others): to avoid overlinking. No problem to add links of course. DONE. Consistency needs some work, I'll take a look. DONE. First noted empty should read First noted in 1852, but that could be better communicated by just inserting "1852" obviously. DONE. Single table: I thought about this, but was afraid that it would become too wide a table, with too many small columns. DONE Blank cells = no information available (or found by me at least). This may e.g. mean that a work is lost, the current location unknown, or the current location known but not online; I can fill all the blanks with "unknown" instead, but what's the problem with empty cells? Blank cells are an unknown quantity, does it mean "not applicable", "unknown", (overlooked), or what? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Blank cells mean "no information available" (or "we don't know", if you prefer). Fram (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC) "Not in the 1852 catalogue" are works that are noted in some of the earlier catalogues, but not in the 1852 one; whether this means that they were already sold, or were moved out of the Gallery and into some other, none publicly viewable room, is not known. This also means that we probably don't have an image of this work, making it harder to identify it. Language parameter, page number indication; I'll have a look. Page numbers now DONE. Language tags DONE as well. en-dash vs. em-dahs is one of those things I always mess up, I'll try to get it right. Thanks for the comments, it'll make this a better article/list whether it makes FL or not. As for the FL vs. GA: no idea which is most applicable here, I thought because most of the article was a list, a FL would be more logical. Fram (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC) I have indicated a few things that are fixed now. Fram (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I am unsure about some titles. Proper nouns are usually always capitalicized (except articles, prepositions, etc), eg I tend to think that A slightly agitated sea, with ships should be A Slightly Agitated Sea, with Ships. If the Gallery prefers uncapitalicized wording, then that is fine. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Capitalization of things like the titles of paintings is all over the place. Christie's e.g. has "A Mediterranean coastal inlet with merchants unloading boats, a temple beyond " (basically the scheme I followed), Sotheby's does the same; the original English catalogue uses more capitalization, but not very consistently, there is e.g. Waterfall near a Mill; stormy weather, or Shepherd's Family and Flock, resting under high trees, or John the Evangelist, holding a book. Confronted with a main source which isn't consistent, and other, more in line with current practice (and quite authoritative) which have a consistent system, I chose the latter. Fram (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Most comments have now been tackled. I haven't done anything about the empty cells, filling them all with "unknown" seems like overkill; and I haven't done anything about the dashes in the references, since at first glance the only dashes there are in titles (articles or books), and are copied from where I got it. Errors or different styles in titles shouldn't be corrected (just like in quotes) was my understanding. Can you (plural) take a look to see whether I missed some things or which further issues need addressing? Fram (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks quite good. I am unsure about the sorting of articles, eg. A calm sea, with large and small vessels should be probably sorted as "calm sea, with large and small vessels". Also the table won't sort if I push on numerous columns. --Tomcat (7) 13:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had forgotten the final column on one entry, which wasn't visible but ruined the repeated sorting (found this thanks to Help:Sorting). Fram (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comments

• What's up with the attributions that are the same as the painter? "Many of the attributions have later been changed; where known, the most recent attribution[...] have been noted" implies that you're only noting it when it has changed, but it seems you're noting it whenever it's known no matter what (as rare as that knowledge seems to be).
• I'd repeat the Three Graces photo in the table at the correct spot- you don't have so many images that you can ignore one, and it's way down the page so the reader may not have a clear picture any more of what it looked like.
• You have a few citations (and the external link) that don't have months capitalized.
• Wish you had more pictures, but it can't be helped, I suppose.
• All of the "d' Hondecoeter" links are redirecting to "d'Hondecoeter"
• As noted above, titles like "A calm sea" should sort under C, not A.

• --PresN 19:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I note all current attributions, whether changed or not: for most paintings, no current attribution exists because no one has seen the actual painting, only the Muxel drawings which, while good, are not enough to make actual attributions. DONE.
  • Good idea for the picture, will do (or I might use another picture of the same statue of course). And no, I don't have more pictures for the moment of the actual paintings: would it be useful if I included, where possible, pictures from the 1852 catalogue? They aren't very clear when reduced to 150px, I'm afraid... File:Leuchtenberg Gallery 80 - Circumcision of Christ by Guido Reni.jpg is an example. DONE
  • I'll have a look for the months DONE
  • The space between "d'" and "hondecoeter" is because of the sort template; they need to be sorted at the H, but this causes an extra space. I'll see if there is anything I can do about this. NOT DONE, no solution found at the moment
  • I'll add sort templates to all titles that need one. DONE
  • Thanks for the comments! Fram (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • All changes done now (except d'Hondecoeter, I don't see a good solution for this). Fram (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support, that was everything I was going for. Your call on putting in the sketches. It's not a big deal, but as far as sorting goes, you can do {{sortname|Blah|d'Hondecoeter||Hondecoeter, Blah d'}}- links to and displays d'Hondecoeter, but sorts by Hondecoeter. You can also do {{sort|abalone|The ablalone}} for the titles, if you want, rather than sortname with nolink=1 each time. Not a big deal either way. --PresN 19:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for the support and the suggestions. I'll have a look! Fram (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• What does exactly the source in ref 2 covers in that lead sentence?
  • From ref 2: "The gallery, located in Munich, boasted one of Europe's most important private collections [...] The work by Passavant and Muxel, one of the important 19th-century examples of an illustrated catalogue of a private collection, garnered so much interest that it was republished in London the following year[...]" So the ref sources everything but the "being open to the public" part of the preceding sentence.
    • OK, so you should put the source page (in this case, page 78) where that quotation is located. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC) DONE.
• "In 1810, Eugène bought part of the collection of Giovanni Francesco Arese, including at least one painting by Rubens, was bought by Eugène de Beauharnais." DONE
• Remove "It was the largest palace in Munich.". Seems extraneous, more fit for Palais Leuchtenberg. DONE
• "...and was catalogued from 1825 on in French and German from 1825 on, with a new version from 1841 on in German from 1841 on" DONE
• Link Duke Maximilian. DONE
• "...the Gallery was closed,[5] and the collection was divided between his children,[6] and the Palace was sold to Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria." Notice the comma before ref 5. DONE
• There are two instances where "Gallery" is presented in lowercase. DONE
• The way that "Part of the collection moved together with Eugen Maximilianovich, Duke of Leuchtenberg from Munich to Russia in 1863,[3], while another part was already transferred to St. Petersburg in 1854, where it was displayed in the Mariinsky Palace[7] and from 1870 on was lent to the Imperial Academy of Arts in Saint Petersburg.[8]" is written, I cannot understand if both "parts" or just the one transferred in 1854 were lent to the Imperial Academy in 1870. I'd start the sentence with the first portion of the collection and then the one that accompanied Eugen to Saint Petersburg (link the city's name and decide if it's "St." or "Saint"). DONE
• "were being sold off;" – Close the sentence here, replace the semi-colon with a period. DONE
• Link Russian Revolution of 1917. DONE
• "and a number of paintings were sold in Sweden." DONE
• Washington → Washington D.C. DONE
• "in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City", to be consistent with the previous examples. DONE
• I see no need to have the image of "The Three Graces" transcluded twice. Leave just the one in the table, as the lead section already has the palace image.
  • Above, it was suggested to have both (one in the lead, one in the sculptures section); since I can not satisfy both recommendations, I have gone with my preference and kept both. But no objection from me if there is agreement that only once is sufficient.
• "This includes the 1826 and expanded 1841 German language catalogues.[9][10] and the 1841 expanded German language catalogue.[10]". DONE
• Do not use {{lang}} within the {{cite book}} template as it shows [[Category:Articles containing (...) language text]] in the title part of the reference. This occurs in ref 9, 10, 11 and 35. DONE
• The "Notes" section would be better named as "References" as it contains mostly book references.
  • Normally, "notes" and "references" are used interchangeably on Wikipedia. I prefer notes, but for no particular reason, so changed to References here. DONE
• Similarly, the last section links not to a book but to an external website, so it should be named "External links". DONE (originally, it contained some books as well, but these ended up as references, leaving only this website link)

Parutakupiu (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• A relatively quick search and I found images of some collection works that you can put in the list:
  • Jan Weenix – A dead hare and a magpie, laying by a fowling-piece, and smelt at by a dog
  • Jan Weenix – Agitated seaport, with magnificent buildings, columns and obelisks
  • Jean-Baptiste Wicar – Resuscitation of the youth at Nain
  • Emmanuel de Witte – Interior of a Gothic church with white marble columns
  • François Joseph Bosio – Cupid on the point of launching an arrow
  • Francesco Albani – Jupiter, in the shape of a bull, carrying off Europa

Parutakupiu (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Some more images, and I'm sure there are plenty more:
  • Andrea Appiani – Napoleon as King of Italy
  • Andrea Appiani – Napoleon sitting on his throne (?)
  • Fra Bartolomeo – Madonna della Misericordia
  • Jacopo Bassano – Christ bearing his cross (?)
  • Gentile Bellini – Mary holding the infant saviour on her knee (?)

Parutakupiu (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Any evidence that these images are the Leuchtenberg Gallery pictures, and not other versions of the same pictures (which is very common)? E.g. the Wicar picture doesn't seem to be the same picture[3]. I have only included pictures where I was certain that the one depicted was the exact one that was in the Leuchtenberg Gallery. The Weenix one, which has already been added to the article, is a completely different picture, in the Leuchtenberg one the dog is almost on top of the rabbit/hare in the centre of the picture, not mostly hidden at the right. Please, don't add any pictures that don't have a clear "Leuchtenberg" provenance. I'll take a look and try to incorporate your other comments. Fram (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that 95% of the pictures can be checked from the 1852 catalogue, available online, so in many cases like the Weenix it is obvious that they aren't the same picture. For other ones, like the Belisarius one that was at one time added to the article, some more research was needed to establish whether it was the same picture. Fram (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not realize you wanted images of the originals. In this case, disregard any of my suggestions that do not fit that criterium. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

yes, I think it is misleading to add images of paintings which are similar to but not the actual ones from the collection. Thanks to your work and that of User:P. S. Burton, we know have quite a few more pictures in the article, so it's not as sparsely illustrated as it used to be. I have added the current location and attribution to the Solari picture, with a good source. Fram (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Wicar painting does look like the one depicted in the catalogue, as well as the one in that book link you provided. Parutakupiu (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, since (according to that book) there have been three somewhat different versions of the same picture, of which the Lille version is one (the final one) and the Leuchtenberg painting is another. I'm not a great fan of showing version X to depict version Y, I feel it is misleading the reader (if only because we have a picture of a painting, but no whereabouts...), but on the other hand it does provide info on what the picture more-or-less looked like. I'ld rather not include it, but perhaps others have a different opinion on this. Fram (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It's your call in the end. I just thought you didn't want it because it was a version completely differente from the original, and in that case I wouldn't put it either. Parutakupiu (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have gone through your remarks, incorporated most of them, commented on a few others. Thanks for the patience and care which you applied, my sentences are often somewhat awkward (my reading skills are usually fluent enough, but my writing betrays that I'm not a native English speaker). Fram (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not my native language as well, but wherever and whenever I see I can improve, I'll try to help. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Done your final remark now as well. Fram (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 37 lacks accessdate and maybe a link to the work's page in the source site? Parutakupiu (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hm, that was a rather poor reference. Changed to an online accessible reliable source instead, provides a bit more information. The page on the museum website [4] has no more information (nothing on the provenance from Leuchtenberg and so on), so I have not included it. Fram (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note this FLC has undergone significant changes since it was first nominated. I would advise that it's best to re-start the nomination in order to progress the candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a FL regular, but what would be the benefit of restarting the process? Fram (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, two things. (a) the list has changed a lot so it's only fair to let people who have already looked at it (like me) to get another chance to review it, and (b) it's better than "archiving" it as unsuccessful since it's not getting any real interest at the moment, putting it back at the top of the list may attract some new interest. The alternative is to ask a few people from relevant Wikiprojects to pop by to see what they think. I don't consider this canvassing, in fact it would be nice to see more traffic at FLC! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to archive this, I have started Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leuchtenberg Gallery/archive2 instead. If that was the wrong way to proceed, feel free to revert and to point me in the right direction instead! Fram (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)