Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Four Times of the Day

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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Four Times of the Day edit

Probably not one of Hogarth's more famous series, these four pictures provide a light-hearted snapshot of 18th century London. ALoan and I have tried to pick out the details. I hope you find it interesting (and that ALoan returns to help me out with any objections). Yomangani ^talk 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, congratulations. Comments:
- This sentence is, I think, misleading/difficult: Four Times of the Day was the first set of prints that Hogarth had published since his two great successes A Harlot's Progress (1732) and A Rake's Progress (1735) and one of the first to be published after the Engraving Copyright Act 1734 (which Hogarth had helped push through Parliament) had come into force. (1) It makes it seem like the prints were among the first in general to be printed, when really there must have been hundreds of prints published between 1735-8. (2) A Rake's Progress was published after the Act came into force; indeed, Hogarth held it back for this reason. The words 'one of the first' make is seem like Hogarth was making an important innovation when he printed Four Times of the Day, when really he was just doing the same as he had for at least one major set of prints already.
  I thought that phrasing made it clearer that it was one of Hogarth's first publications since the act rather than one of the first in general, but obviously not. I've rephrased it. Yomangani ^talk 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~The background paragraph contains the comment 'Find ref in Paulson', which presumably needs dealing with~~
  Fixed (I knew I missed one). Yomangani ^talk 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't say much about the history of the paintings after they were painted. According to the Dictionary of National Biography, Morning and Night are kept at Upton House, Warwickshire and Noon and Evening are in a private collection. It would be nice, if possible, to include something about how they got there. The article on Upton House contains some info.

Ycdkwm 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky. The other two are in the Ancaster Collection at Grimsthorpe Castle, never having been resold, but the two at Upton House seem to have left little trail between Heathcote buying them at the auction and Bearsted gifting them to the National Trust. I've filled in a little detail. Yomangani ^talk 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, this is the kind of information I was thinking of.

Support, as my comments above have been dealt with Ycdkwm 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another fine article by Yomangani, who is making a considerable contribution to the visual arts area on Wikipedia, which is much neglected. I didn't so much read this article as pore over it, opening up all the images and comparing them with each other and the text, as well as feeling prompted to read connected articles and bits and pieces in books about Hogarth. In the latter case, I found the text to be fully supported by the secondary sources I could get hold of. qp10qp 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - a few sentences not directly referenced that probably should be, e.g."In the distance, a cartload of furniture passes Charles' statue, perhaps penurious tenants escaping from their landlord under the cover of darkness." bt I'm happy to accept that the surrounding references cover them. "Four Times of the Day was the first series of prints that Hogarth had issued since the success of the the Harlot and Rake and would be the only set he would issue until Marriage à-la-mode in 1745, so it was eagerly anticipated." - did they know he was planning Marriage á-la-Mode? Because if not, it's hard to see how its date makes the prints more anticipated. Scans of the engravings could stand to be a fair bit larger - it's hard to make out some of the details. I don't think this all adds up to an oppose, but it's a bit problematic. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the Marriage á-la-Mode clause in parentheses to make it clear that they were eagerly anticipated because of the Harlot and Rake. As to the size of the images, if anybody can find better copies I'd be happy to replace them, but I'm afraid those were the best copies I've been able to get hold of. Yomangani ^talk 15:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - succinct crisp prose and comprehensive - congrats. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not yet~~ - doesn't feel quite balanced in terms of sections and layout.
- DoneThe background section is a hefty chunk of prose to get through before getting to the actual pictures themselves. Could the background material be itself split up to make it more digestable?
- The sections on each of the four pictures are fine, but the first two having a "detail" picture and the last two not makes it feel top-heavy. I would suggest having the same number of pictures in each of the "series" subsections (ie. Morning, Noon, Evening, Night), and ensuring the amount of text in each section balances as well.
- The individual picture subsections could also be broken up a bit by bold titles introducing the paragraphs on different parts of that painting (use the ";" formatting).
- After reading through four lengthy analyses of the four paintings, the "Reception" section feels too short in comparison.
- DoneFinally, the introductory picture should be a montage of the four paintings (get some technical wizard to do this for you if you can't). At first, I thought the picture of Hogarth was the painting itself. The picture of Hogarth should go in the background section.
If all this is done or there are good reasons not to do them, then I'd support. Carcharoth 13:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a bit stuck here. My personal preferences in this area seem to run contrary to yours. Does adding headings to the paragraphs really help? To me it seems to break the article down into something more of a list and constrains the discussion. I don't see any need for additional pictures in the discussion of the second two pictures, although I'm open to suggestions if you have an idea of what should appear. Not all the pictures have the same amount of discussion because not all the pictures have the same number of topics to discuss: there's a lot going on in some of them and less in others. I don't think there is anything more to say in the reception section: very little has been written on their reception (if you can find anything it would be a welcome addition). Finally, I've added the group pic as suggested. I'm not sure it adds a lot as it is too small to be able to make out any of the details, but I don't suppose it detracts from the article either. Yomangani ^talk 15:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the montage picture a great improvement, and the picture in the background section is enough to break up the text, so I'm happy with those bits. I still feel the layout of the detail pictures is clumsy. I'll try something on the article itself - see if you think it improves it. The same for the bold bits. I'll look in tomorrow and will probably support then. Nothing to say about the rest of the article - great writing and fascinating subject. Carcharoth 17:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I thought the extra pictures in the top two sections were details from the main pictures. I see now they are showing details from other pictures. Why not start a new section titled "Relation to other works" or something? And use those two pictures there and work in the text from the main picture sections? Carcharoth 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the pictures are discussed in order I think it would be a little awkward to split out some of the details from each to a separate section. That approach works well when discussing a single piece, but I think this linear structure works better in the case of a series. (Glad you like the montage, I think it's growing on me too.) Yomangani ^talk 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find the details from Battle of the Pictures and Rape of the Sabine Women distracting. There are other examples where you could illustrate what you are talking about, for example, Gin Lane, but you chose to focus on these two instead. I still think having just the two pictures (painting and engraving) for each of the four sections would work best, but I won't oppose just for that! :-) Carcharoth 12:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - following above discussion. Carcharoth 12:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More great work on an interesting subject, Yomangani. This one doesn't have an infobox, while your last one did. I'm not bothered either way, but you might see if there's a standard on a project somewhere. I think there are a few paragraphs that are somewhat overloaded—the first and last of Background, for example. I'd digest the info better with a few more para breaks. Evening also seems a touch underweight compared to the others. Two specific things:

"Paulson sees the kite hanging from the church as forming a trinity of signs" threw me. The headless woman is an actual sign, the black man's head is a complimentary sign,(?) so "Paulson sees the kite as the third in a trinity of signs"?
"perhaps Venus, Adonis and Cupid..."; assuming that's not your guess, it should be attributed.

Finally, watch en dash use where em is appropriate. Cheers, Marskell 11:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to make the trinity of signs clearer: it refers to the two real signs on the other side of the street, and attributed the fan comment. There is no appropriate infobox: the painting infoboxes are the closest there are, but it would mean attempting to shoehorn the details in. I think it is better as is. Yomangani ^talk 11:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading it seems more clear it's John the Baptist's head. It's just that with two intervening sentences you risk the reader not grasping it. Is the Evening scene meant to say anything else about gender? Both with the children and the adults, the female appears domineering. The horns to symbolize cuckolding is interesting. Just a thought.

I'm supporting. Good work. Marskell 07:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.