Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tornado over Kansas/archive1

< 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2021 [1].

Tornado over Kansas edit

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1929 Regionalist painting by John Steuart Curry. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing-pass edit

  • Worst case, Baptism for Kansas will just have to be removed from the article. Is there any avenue of potentially avoiding this? According to DMacks, it should still be considered in the public domain? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. I explained on the deletion why their keep rationale is invalid. (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, I couldn't find any way to justify PD-US. Could this be considered for fair use? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, although it would be fair use in an article specifically about Line Storm(if notable). (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main image, I'm not sure. This issue of Life magazine that it was published in (23 Nov 1936) was copyrighted and its copyright was renewed[2], not 100% sure how that applies to the contents of the magazine. (t · c) buidhe 00:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back at FAC with another great article about notable works of art! (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Since it appears that Baptism for Kansas is slated for deletion, and since PD-US so far can not be justified for Line Storm, I removed those images from the article. Hopefully, they can be added back sometime in the future. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the main image still needs to be uploaded with a fair use rationale since there's no evidence it's PD-US. (t · c) buidhe 23:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: After obtaining a copy of Sweeney p. 99, I realized that this page of the 1977 book contains a full, albeit black and white, image of the painting without any copyright notice. Does this count as sufficient rationale for PD-US, or does the specific publication date in the year 1977 matter as well since metadata in the Duke University catalog dates publication to "c. 1977" for a October 1 to November 30, 1977 exhibition. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, what exactly does it say in the Duke University catalog? (t · c) buidhe 18:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you an email with the relevant pages, including both the image and the catalog entry. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it doesn't say it was first published in 1977. The original/first publication is what counts for copyright. It's ok because there's a clear fair use rationale for using it on this page. Just follow the instructions at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard "Upload a non-free file". (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thanks. I uploaded the file to File:Tornado Over Kansas.jpg. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: It seems to me we are close to wrapping up this review, so I just wanted to confirm that the image review is passed? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment edit

  • 'The composition appears "almost theatrically staged."' Note that MOS:QUOTE requires "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in the original). Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for a while and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the reminder. Is it considered acceptable to ask users to review a certain candidacy on their talk pages or just ping them directly here? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is, so long as the notification or request is phrased neutrally. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To note; ping received and looking. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 days after my first note and still no supports. I intend to archive this in 24 hours unless this changes. Possibly you could nudge the various reviewers and commentators below to see if you can illicit a couple of overt supports? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing. Both Aza24 and Ceoil have indicated their intention to support, so hopefully they can let me know if there's anything I can do to get their explicit support soon. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe edit

Comments from Aza24 edit

Will leave some comments soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aza24 in case you forgot about this (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Its only been 3 days. Give them a break. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fascinating subject matter! Comments below:
  • "seemingly apparent" is probably unneeded—surely "apparent" would work fine, unless there is doubt from scholars?
  • The main source I'm basing this on is Jaffe, who writes: "Thus the fear of storms, common enough in children, may well have been deepened by his Calvinist sense of guilt. Later in life Curry's concern with violence in nature-animals fighting, thunder, lightning, and heavy rain depicted in his landscapes-may well reflect his attempts to control his early fears, sublimating them into aesthetic expression as in Tornado Over Kansas" The use of "may" in this analysis indicate that this was Jaffe's academically informed but not 100% confident belief, so I decided to add in a "seemingly". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually most of the infobox stuff is put into the lead; the size seems unnecessary as its not particularly big or small—what about the "oil on canvas" part?
  • Going along with my above comment, the first paragraph feels like it could be smoother. (Not sure if this is an improvement or not but what about: Painting in oil on canvas, it depicts a dramatic scene in which a family races for shelter as a tornado approaches their farm. The artist was influenced by Baroque art and photographs of tornadoes, and the work has thematic and compositional connections to Curry's earlier 1928 painting Baptism in Kansas ?
  • Completely optional, but repeat the alternate title in the description so the ref could be put there and not the lead?
  • "Namely, Tornado over Kansas illustrates a" maybe use "the painting" or "the work" here since the title was used in the previous sentence
  • Personally, I think the paragraph beginning with "An incoming tornado towers in the background as part of a dark storm" ought to be first in the description section, as it is pure description. Then perhaps the "Tornado over Kansas is described as an example..." paragraph as the last in this section—thoughts?
  • Good idea. Done for now, but it does seem kind of awkward to introduce the title of the painting later in the section. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've linked Kansas in the lead but am unsure, my thoughts were that our UK and Australian readers will probably not know the state, but feel free to unlink
  • I feel awkward to say I wasn't sure what "litter" meant (thought of the garbage meaning) perhaps it warrants a link to Litter (rescue basket)?
  • I well if that's the link I would recommend it—never would have guessed that one between the three meanings. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I read the interpretation section, I'm not sure I see the "thematic similarities" (as the lead suggests) to the Baptism in Kansas—other than that they both take place in Kansas? I primarily only see the compositional ones, at least from the text presented
  • The Context section feels like it should be above the interpretation one, not sure though
  • Now that I'm reading the Reception and provenance section—I'm left thinking the lead could use some slight clarification. Particularly, "disliked by native Kansans... (maybe add here ->) for its choice of subject matter" ?
  • Great article otherwise. Looking forward to supporting. Aza24 (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tremendous work per usual. Happy to support—though, I agree with your confusion on introducing the painting's title later in the description. Possibly this could be resolved by having "Tornado over Kansas, sometimes referred to as just The Tornado, depicts an incoming tornado..." and later just "The work/painting is described..." Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, that does kind of compromise the "dramatic" effect of the first sentence, but overall, it seems to be an improvement. Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Support by Ceoil edit

First impressions are good: 1913 words on a minor work seems sufficient (1200 is min for me for an FAC, and would not espically like to see this page padded out longer in wordcount than it currently is, as the scholarship just isn't there), and the sources are high quality (and properly formatted). Do see some prose gaps here and there, that may just tackle myself, with the proviso that the General can revert at will. Anything that's confusing to me will be listed here. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll perform a prose check in the near future as well. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luce (1996) and both Hadden's are not used in the citations and so should be moved to "further reading" Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think this is a quirk with the default citation format for magazine articles without known authors. Luce and Hadden are editors of Life and Time respectively, but their names are placed first in the citation template. Using the editors' names in the shortref did not feel right, however, so I went with the magazine titles instead. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have made a first pass on prose. Lightweight changes only. Will revisit in four or five days.Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead could be beefed up a bit. Would have at least three paras....(a)overview and description, (b)critical view, (b)provenance and place within Curry's canon. Or something like that. Have made a stab at structuring it like that, but needs additions. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, appreciate the layout. I got the lead expanded to some 200 words, and I think it now provides a comprehensive overview of the painting. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contradiction here: lead: "The artist was influenced by...photographs of tornadoes, and his personal life", but then later although, according to his widow, Curry never saw a tornado himself, the artist was likely familiar with accounts of tornadoes' destructive power. "Accounts" is not equal to in "his personal life". Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more of an ambiguity than contradiction, since I meant to refer to Curry's fear of storms and God during his childhood. I reworded that sentence in my last pass over the lead to clarify. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The resonance of fear of storms and God during his childhood is far more interesting than than merely witnessing. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For co-ords, knowning Generals form; there is a lot of work needed still but expect to eventually support. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As update, still re-reading, making minor ce's etc, and no substantial issues found; still intending to support. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
given this has been open so long, giving Support - can fix my remaining quibbles myself, article is certainly FA standard. Ceoil (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor passing comments edit

  • Pace Kroiz, the gate may "bar" the path - that is the function of a gate until it is opened - and it has a chain, but is not "chained", as in sealed shut. Rather, it seems clear to me a weight is attached as an automatic gravity-powered self-closing mechanism. We don't seem to have a relevant article, but this sort of ball and chain apparatus is sometimes known as a "cannonball closer". e.g.
  • The wording used in Kroiz is "chained", which is what I'm going to stick to as well. Even while zooming in on the painting, I find it difficult to see the "cannonballs" of the cannonball closer. Then again, I'm not an expert on this subject, since my knowledge of household/outdoor hardware is really bare. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, pace Kroiz. The gate has a chain, but it is not chained (as in "chained shut", and not just "has a chain"). Just as a door with a lock is not necessarily locked. If it is "chained" why is the other end of the chain attached to a short peg some distance away, and not wrapped around the gatepost? The scan is not entirely clear, and I haven't found a better one or seen the original, but where the chain hangs closest to the ground, there seems to be some sort of gear or machinery being used as a weight, rather than a cannonball. But whatever. Theramin (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hackley Art Gallery was one of the many public amenities in Muskegon funded by Charles Hackley. On his death in 1905, he left the Muskegon Public Schools Board of Education a fund of $150,000 to buy art, now known as the Hackley Picture Fund. The Board added the Hackley Art Gallery beside the Hackley Public Library in 1910-12. It remained the Hackley Art Gallery for almost 70 years, but changed its name to become the Muskegon Museum of Art in 1980. Details here
  • Thanks for pointing out that error. I made the corrections to the lead and provenance sections. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of the Muskegon Museum of Art catalogue page is that Kneeland offered to buy the painting from Curry in 1931, but instead it was bought in 1935 by the Hackley Art Gallery (as it was then named).
  • As a data point, perhaps worth saying one impression from the edition of 25 lithographs sold for $13,750 in 2020. Rare and valuable, but not millions. And then to show its notability, that inter alia the Met, NGA and Whitey each have an example. [3] [4] [5]
  • Thanks. Do any of the sources discuss the differences between the painting and the lithograph, which is not a direct copy or mirror image: it puts the people in somewhat different positions, and leaves out some details (such as the gate) and add others (such as a windmill)? Theramin (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of the sources talk about more the influence of this painting on his later works? For example, a tornado appears in the background of his mural Tragic Prelude.
  • Okay, unfortunately, Jaffe does not discuss explicitly any cause-and-effect relationship between painting Tornado over Kansas and Tragic Prelude, but Adams suggests a connection between the tornadoes in both, so I just added a mention of the Tragic Prelude in the Context section along with other tornado/natural disaster works by Curry. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is disappointing but I suppose there is not much you can do without sources. There are some angles here but I'm not sure how much it helps. Theramin (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at this article, and it presents similar ideas to the 1987 Jaffe article. Couldn't find any explicit link between the two paintings besides surface-level details like the inclusion of a tornado though. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect it may be worth consulting the 1943 biography by Schmeckebier, which is mentioned in the text but not currently cited as a source.

Good luck. Theramin (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theramin: Thanks for the comments! Please feel free to follow up. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to support as it is: anything more is polishing. Theramin (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass edit

References

  • #3: Life should be italicized.
  • #9: Time should be italicized.

Publications

  • Adams 1998: ISBN only partially hyphenated.
  • College of Agriculture of the University of Wisconsin: Month of publication missing. Also, "College of Agriculture of the University of Wisconsin" is probably best given as the publisher, not author.
  • Dennis 2006: ISBN only partially hyphenated.
  • Kroiz 2018: ISBN only partially hyphenated.
  • Marling 2000: ISBN only partially hyphenated.

Online

  • Swann Galleries: The date of sale could probably be used as the date of the source, but it's up to you.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Usernameunique: Thanks for the source review. I think I covered and applied all of your points except for the Swann Galleries one. To me, the date of the source should refer to its published/last updated date. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, GeneralPoxter. I'm signed off. Note that you might consider alphabetizing "An Exhibition of Work by John Steuart Curry" as if it begins with an 'E' (i.e., you might ignore the "An")—but this is your call. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism check edit

Gog the Mild, do we still need a plagiarism check on this one since it's my second FAC? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A source to text fidelity spotcheck is not a requirement other than for a first (successful) FAC nomination. That said, any editor may do any amount of such spot checks at any time, and less experienced nominators are more likely to be scrutinised. That is a decision for individual editors, the lack of this will not hold up a potential promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right thanks. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

  • "painterly, technical errors". What is the difference between a painterly error and a technical error in this context? I can only find explicit reference to the latter in the main article, which the lead is supposed to be a summary of.
Ceoil? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Art historian Lauren Kroiz". Preface with 'The', to avoid a false title.
  • "Namely, the work illustrates ..." To my eye this would be improved by deleting "Namely,".
  • "of modern European painting". Readers may find this easier to understand if you replaced "modern", perhaps with 'contemporary'?
  • On several occasions the closeness of the phraseology in this article cited to Adams is uncomfortably close to Adams own:
  • the first to clearly document a tornado's shape - the first to document a tornado's shape clearly.
  • complacent white chicken - complacent white chicken
  • noted that the artist's first marriage was in turmoil when the work was created - notes that the painting was created at a time when Curry's first marriage was in turmoil.
  • Rephrased to "... noted that the artist faced a marital struggle when the work was created, so the painting possibly reflects those tensions." GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Individually each is just about acceptable, cumulatively less so.

Similarly the Muskegon Museum of Art web site:

  • according to his widow, Curry never saw a tornado himself - According to his widow, Curry never saw a tornado himself

Again minor on its own.

  • Rephrased to "Though his widow claimed Curry never witnessed a tornado in person ..." GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a mild further paraphrasing of these four examples and a check that there are not further examples from other sources prior to me carrying out a more detailed check.

Ah, the idea of a copyright check at FAC is not so much that a reviewer go through every cite, but that if there are qualms then the nominator carries out whatever checks they feel necessary to ensure that such a check would not undercover further qualms. If, after reassurances from a nominator that there were no further issues, a spot check revealed some, this would be reasonable grounds for opposing and suggesting that the nomination be withdrawn for further work to bring it to a FAC-ready status. (I am not saying that I would necessarily do this, just pointing out a common course of events.) So I await your assurance that you are happy that any similar issues during the writing process - and we have all done it, certainly I have, to my shame - have been addressed before I spot check.
  • @Gog the Mild: Thanks. I went over the entire article to check for more potential violations, and am now confident it should now be in shape. I am open to a spot check now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Art curator Henry Adams". Preface with 'The'. Similarly elsewhere.
  • "coulisse" → 'coulisses'.
Doesn't matter, unless it is a quote - even then one is allowed to correct obvious grammatical errors.
  • "coulisse". Either add an in line explanation of coulisse - per MOS:LINK "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links" - or use a different term.
  • "as they looking towards the father". "looking"?
  • "Adams views the scene as either a celebration or dismemberment of traditional American family values." That doesn't correspond to what he says in the source.
  • On page 124, Adams writes: "Despite the seemingly conventional technique of Tornado, its major idea is the possibility of explosion and dismemberment...Indeed, it is hard to tell whether the canvas is a celebration of traditional American ideals—the nuclear family, hard work, the farm, the manly man, and the feminine female—or a kind of dismemberment of these ideals to create a new system of order." I attempted to summarize this view in the sentence above, but am open to follow-up suggestions. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, rereading I see where you are coming from. Maybe 'Adams considers the scene to be either a'?
  • Link "dust storm".
  • "while it is regarded for its visual accuracy". Can I suggest 'while it is also regarded for its visual accuracy'.
  • I moved that clause entirely to the tornado paragraph, because it originally was supposed to pertain to the tornado's visual accuracy. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "locals were did not want to "[expose their state] to opprobrium on account of a twister or two", especially by one of their own" doesn't really work, to my eye. Perhaps '... locals were did not want to see "[their state exposed] to ...'?
  • "Kansas Governor Henry Justin Allen". Lower case G.
  • The editors of John Steuart Curry: Inventing the Middle West should be given.

A fine piece of work and an enjoyable read. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of follow up comments above. If I have not commented further against a point, assume that I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: I noticed that the FACbot skipped over this article during the last cycle. Is this possibly due to the name/title change during the FAC process? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably is. It's always simpler if name changes don't take place till the entire FAC process has finished -- Hawkeye7 is it better to move this back or you to just manually force FACbot with the new name? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      In order to change the title, you need only move the article and its talk page, which must match. In this case, the name of the nomination was changed on the talk page as well; but that then necessitated it being changed on the log page too, which was not done. I've corrected that, and the FACBot has promoted the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tornado_over_Kansas/archive1&oldid=1036505710"