 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Not in Wikipedia's voice, please edit
There'a a world of difference between observing "This group of nudes by Modigliani served to reaffirm ..." and "Christie's lot notes observes that this group ...". One would hope that editors able to contribute effectively at the article were alert to the difference (and indeed, I suggest, do better than merely copy-paste quotes from critiques in the popular press). JVollenhoven 15:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Order of sections edit
I recognize that this is a subjective opinion, but I find it a bit crass to place the “2015 Sale” section first, above the sections covering the work itself.
I believe I am acting in the true spirit of Wikipedia as well as hewing closer to the accepted rules of article structure by moving the “2015 Sale” section to the end of the article - sections should be structured chronologically whenever feasible and the sale is objectively the most recent waypoint in the artwork’s timeline.
Furthermore, this article is ostensibly about a significant work of art, and taken within the greater scope of the history of Art History, information on the piece itself must always take precedence over any financial discussion it may engender.
Yes, the 2015 record-setting sale is part of the story, and of course it has a place in this article. That place, however, is not at the top. Much like the gross*[1] over-commercialization and financial speculation within the art market, the 2015 sale it is a product of modern forces, and being the most recent development in the greater story at hand, it is the newest so it goes last.
- [1] “gross” in the financial sense relating to size or volume, not as a critique of a particular aesthetic