Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Las Meninas

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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

Las Meninas edit

Co-nom with Johnbod. 1656 painting by Diego Velázquez. The article was significantly improved in the last few weeks from work and fact checking by JNW and Amanda. Ceoil (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, when I noticed that this was at peer review, I was going to say that I would support this at fac since every thought I had was already covered, however, it is already at fac, so here I am to support. dv dv dv d 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - outstanding. Two minor comments though. I sympathise with your "too many to refer to" approach in cite 2, but I suggest that additionally, you include a notable instance from a leading Velazquez scholar. Second, to aid 'navigation' of the image, a 'map' of the type that can be seen (here) would be a useful addition to the prose, guiding the newcomer through the cast list of the painting. I, for example, struggled to identify the older looking woman in the background, wondering if she's a maid of honour or not. I guess I'm not the only thicko that comes to this site, so others may also struggle. Anyway, congrats on a great piece of work. --Dweller (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points - can anyone help with a version of the painting with numbers on for the key? I think big white numbers should work, so it can be shown small. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First try posted at Talk:Las_Meninas#Key_by_numbers for discussion. Tyrenius (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done now up, and snapshop point now changed Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The article is terrific. I added this [1], (Eve Sussman’s 89 Seconds at Alcázar) to the article a while back, and it does have a very interesting cast of characters. Modernist (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was a nice addition, thanks, but I have'nt been able to track down a copy of the film yet. Looking forward though as the stills I found look very well. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Amazing work. "Some look out of the canvas at us" I'm not particularly fond of first person plural in an encyclopedia. Why not just "the viewer" here? Viewer is used elsewhere in the article. Also, is Las Meninas the name given to the painting by Velázquez himself, or is it a title acquired somewhere else? Rest of the article looks great though. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Called "La Familia" in early inventories, which is in the article. Las Meninas I think dates from early C19 (used by Ford 18?48), but, no, not the original name. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have provided more background on title. JNW (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded as "the viewer". Thanks for your comments. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments. This is an excellent article and I'm so happy that Johnbod and Ceoil have taken it on - Las Meninias is a very important painting. I did an extensive peer review of this article, so I know how hard they have been working and this article has improved quite a bit. It read so much more smoothly this time around. I just have a few comments:

Caption: Her left cheek was largely repainted following fire damage in 1734. - Her cheek was repainted in 1734 or it was damaged in 1734 or both? It is unclear - it is only clear later in the article, but I read the caption first.

Done Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The painting has been cut down on both the left and right sides. - When? Why? What was cut off?

Presumably no one knows, as is usually the case. From Lopez-Rey I think - Anyone? This was very often done, and very rarely documented, to large paintings, usually to make them fit a frame or a room. It could have been done at the time of painting, or after the fire. It can presumably be seen because the surface is fully painted to the edge of the remaining canvas, which is presumably nailed behind the stretcher (wooden framework), whereas normally an unpainted border is left for this. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will check further on this, from Lopez-Rey. JNW (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far I can not find specific explanation as to how much of the painting was cropped, nor when or why. The mention in Lopez-Rey seems rather matter-of-fact, though, which implies that whatever trimming was done, presumably after the fire, there was little damage to the composition. JNW (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't know when or why, but there is speculation, perhaps that speculation can be added and labeled as such. Awadewit | talk 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But it seems that the matter is presented in the catalogue raisonné without speculation as to why or when. JNW (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, I suppose we should say for unknown reasons at an unknown time, eh? Awadewit | talk 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An elaboration on the lack of documentation has been added to the footnote. JNW (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examination under infra-red has shown that Velázquez made minor pentimenti or alterations to the figures as he worked; for example, at first his own head inclined to his right, rather than his left. - Still doesn't fit - belongs in a section on painting process or something

I've moved the cutting-down bit up to join this, including it in the same Lopez-Rey ref, which I think is how it first was - but could someone with Lopez-Rey to hand please confirm. These are pieces of basic cataloguing information and belong here.

Despite certain spatial ambiguities, this is the painter's most thoroughly rendered architectural space. - Paragraphs shouldn't start with "this" - best to say "this [noun]".

Done Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large quotes should be cut down and paraphrased. We are an encyclopedia. :)

"Perhaps there exists, in this painting by Velazquez, the representation as it were of Classical representation, and the definition of the space it opens up to us ... representation, freed finally from the relation that was impeding it, can offer itself as representation in its pure form." - I think this needs to be explained - like much of Foucault, it is not very clear.

The "Ovid" paragraph of "Las Meninas as culmination of themes in Velázquez" could make its main point a bit clearer. It was not entirely clear to me why it was a "culmination of a Velazquez theme".

I've bolstered with a critical quote here - the theme itself is much too long to precis here, but the article quoted from is online.

Footnotes 4, 26, 43, 50 are missing journal issue number and page numbers

Foucault's book needs the translator's name in the bibliography

An excellent article - when I studied this painting as an undergraduate, the main points my professor mentioned were the mirror bit, the position of the spectator, and the play with perspective (in both senses of the word). Thus, I can say with some sort of certainty (!) that we have some sort of comprehensiveness (like all the hedging?). The article is well-written, well-researched, and well-illustrated. Nice work all. Awadewit | talk 04:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose.~~ Support. Looks great! I'll change to support when a few things have been addressed. Some of these are for accord with WP:MOS:

Centuries should be identified with figures: "17th century". They should not have a hyphen, unless used attributively: "In 17th-century Spain"; but "Spain in the 17th century". ("Nineteenth" is misspelt a couple of times anyway.)
General spelling and related matters: repetitions "in in", "the the"; "The righthand wall" > "The wall to the right"; accent missing from "Velázquez" at least once (should also perhaps be checked and silently regularised in references); "betrothaled" > "betrothed to"; check original source with the title with "Barbey D'aurevilly" in it; or silently correct to "Barbey d'Aurevilly" or "Barbey D'Aurevilly" – whichever is the proper form according to WP standards.

I already fixed "betrothed to" as I was reading as well as some misspellings of "nineteenth century". Awadewit | talk 04:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variety of English: Since the article uses mainly British forms and spelling ("honour", not "honor"), this should be consistent: "center" > "centre"; "traveled" > "travelled".
Form of punctuation marks: The article uses straight apostrophes and single quote marks as prescribed at WP:MOS, with some exceptions that need to be fixed (always overriding form given in citations): "Philip’s", "wife’s", "artists’", "Velázquez’s", "‘Las Meninas’", "Sussman’s".
Similarly for double quote marks: “great discontinuities” > "great discontinuities"; “Enslaved sovereign: aesthetics of power in Foucault, Velazquez and Ovid” > "...".
Silently correct nested quote marks in citations so that single quotes occur inside double quote marks. Such purely typographical amendment is standard.
Check that all capitalisation in citations reflects WP standards.
Where single and double quotes are adjacent (as they are more than once here), interpose a hard space, using  .
Apply hard spaces in all page references: "pp. 56–68".
Dashes at the level of sentence punctuation (as opposed to ranges like "1599–1660") are regularly unspaced em dashes in this article. Fix the exceptions: two occurrences of spaced hyphens; one of a spaced em dash; one irregular em dash followed by a space.
A point of usage: "while others interact between themselves" > "while others interact among themselves".

As I introduced this usage, would you please explain your reason for the change? The "use between for two" and "among for more than two" rule is generally not accepted, if that is what you are thinking of. (Think: Among three points on a line.) Awadewit | talk 04:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll explain, Awadewit. I am well aware that the old pedantic prescription "between for two, among for more" is not sufficient. One source reports that Samuel Johnson promoted it, but did not adhere to it himself. On the other hand, some modern sources lean over backwards to permit "between" as promiscuously as possible. Several of these current authorities cite OED, but not with much acumen:

V. 19. In all senses, between has been, from its earliest appearance, extended to more than two. In OE. and ME. it was so extended in sense 1, in which among is now considered better. It is still the only word available to express the relation of a thing to many surrounding things severally and individually, among expressing a relation to them collectively and vaguely: we should not say ‘the space lying among the three points,’ or ‘a treaty among three powers,’ or ‘the choice lies among the three candidates in the select list,’ or ‘to insert a needle among the closed petals of a flower.’

Two facts are relevant here, I think:

1. Neither the case you cite concerning the three points (similar to one of OED's, yes?) nor OED's cases resemble the present case closely. In none of them is there the same "free-form mutuality" as we find in "while others interact between [or among] themselves". Would you, after all, say: "The five continued to chatter between themselves"?

2. Well, perhaps you would say that, rather than "The five continued to chatter among themselves". But consider this: no one with a sound grasp of English would censure this "among" variant; but some with a sound grasp of English would censure the "between" variant. This consideration applies equally to the case we are dealing with.

My reasoning was like that, and still is. Why use a form that some judge catachrestic, when you can use a form that hardly anyone will object to? I presume you would not advise anyone to write "give it to whomever wants it" (though many do write that), for the very same reason. This, despite Shakespeare's and KJV's ways with subject whom, and related common uses of whomever.

:)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there also an AE/BE distinction here? Awadewit | talk 14:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It hardly matters now, since Tony has independently fixed between to among. American–British difference? It would only be slight. This article is written in British anyway. I remind you of the last sentence of Sense and Sensibility, which perhaps shows something of the canonic distinction (though not as acutely focused for our purposes as we could wish):

Between Barton and Delaford there was that constant communication which strong family affection would naturally dictate; and among the merits and the happiness of Elinor and Marianne, let it not be ranked as the least considerable, that, though sisters, and living almost within sight of each other, they could live without disagreement between themselves, or producing coolness between their husbands.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Fascinating historical point, but of course using Austen, who wrote 200 years ago doesn't demonstrate modern usage. The title of that very same novel illustrates the problem beautifully. What Austen meant by "sensibility" and what we mean by "sensibility" are two very different concepts. Awadewit | talk 04:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

It was just a pretty aside, Awadewit. I note that that you have countered the points I have made with nothing at all. But let's leave the topic behind, since the thing has now been superseded anyway. If we must continue this nice chat, let's do it at my talk page so we don't clutter things here.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page. Awadewit | talk 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have just a few more things to add when these have been fixed.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below; I think these points have all been addressed, but perhaps you could kindly check. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is just superb. I've fixed, as far as I can tell, all of Noetica's points, and copy-edited the article. Tony (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that perhaps the mention of Picasso's paintings needs to be a little more detailed. The text implies (like most texts I've seen on this topic) that Picasso actually painted 58 versions of Las Meninas; but in fact many of those 58 paintings depict single characters from the original painting: see [2], for example. I think the sentence has to be reworded accordingly. Also, the picture of Picasso's painting is not low-resolution - I'm not an expert on these matters at all, but one of the license plates says "that the use of low-resolution images of works of art.. qualifies as fair use", and I thought I should mention it. Finally, if you want to use a picture of a Picasso version of Las Meninas, perhaps using a less known one would pay off: the one currently used (the grey one) is very frequently reproduced, and is perhaps somewhat misleading. Jashiin (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text added to. I'm not sure myself how correct it is to refer to his style in 1957 as "cubist". Anyone? Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "cubist" is definitely incorrect; simply "late style" would fit, but I guess its too vague (but it looks good! :). Perhaps simply stating that Picasso did 58 paintings, without the "in his [whatever] style" bit, would be sufficient. Jashiin (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done agreed. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Jashiin again): Another detail that may need clarification: the cross of Santiago. My Taschen album (text by Norbert Wolf; I can provide publisher info if you need it) states that Palomino's words are "a legend, of course", but the cross was indeed added later. I don't think that a small Taschen artbook is a very reliable source for a FA; but if the cross was added later (i.e. if you can find a reference for that in one of the books used to create the article), I think it should be mentioned. The way it is now, the text implies that the only fact known about the cross is that Palomino thought it was added later. Also, Palomino is named Palamino in one of the captions and in a reference; it seems to me that this is simply a typo, but I'm not sure, so I won't correct it. Jashiin (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cross is universally accepted as having been added later; whether it was added by the king is the stuff of legend. I will provide cite. Thanks. JNW (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of misspelling, too. JNW (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The passage in the main text does explain that he only joined the order three years after the painting was finished (and a year before his death). Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Noetica): I said "weak oppose", above. Most of my concerns have now been addressed, and I have spent a few hours on the article myself. I now call on the nominators of this article to fix all remaining formatting in the end matter, to conform to WP:CITE. And also please note this from Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Journal_articles, which is an adjunct to WP:CITE:

Note that the numbers after the journal title indicate: volume (issue number, optional), page numbers. Do not capitalize every word of the article title, only the first word, proper names, and the first word after a colon/period/dash. For an article that is available online, make the article title a link to the online version.

When these matters have been addressed I'll scan through the article once more. I look forward to being able to convert my opposition to a "strong support".

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Noetica): I have changed my "weak oppose" to "support", above. Not strong support. I have now spent two or three more hours undoing errors, some of which had been introduced in recent days. There are still a couple of glitches with bibliographic details, and I find it regrettable that the nominators show little interest in finding or fixing these. It is, perhaps, unfair to lean on commenters like Tony and me to donate what amounts to a full day's skilled work on the hard details. But we have done it now, and I for one will do no more. Though it is not perfect, the article is now very fine indeed. I wish it had been to hand when I was in Madrid in 2005, and paid homage to Las Meninas at the Prado. I commend the article to editors here, and urge that it be accepted as a featured article without delay.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:21, 4 January 2008 (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.