Wikipedia:Peer review/White Mountain art/archive2

White Mountain art

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after receiving a GA from Moni3, she suggested that others might provide me valuable feedback before I submit for FAC. All reviews will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, JJ (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Glad to see so many improvements have been made in the article. I'd definitely say it's worthy of GA at the moment, so good job there. However, if the eventual intention is to get the article to FA status, I'm afraid it has a long way to go. Here's a few suggestion to get you started:

• There is still a prevalence of unencylcopedic, flowery, over-enthusiastic language throughout. Some examples:
  • "These early works portrayed a dramatic and untamed mountain wilderness." Remove the sentence as a whole, doesn't tell us anything that can't be better surmised by the reader looking at the pictures already provided.
  • "The images stirred the imagination of Americans, primarily from the large cites of the northeast, who traveled to the White Mountains to view the scenes for themselves." Not really sure what to do about this one. I think it just needs to be redone from the ground up.
  • "The beauty of the region" Replace with "Artwork of the region"'
  • "picturesque views" Remove the sentence altogether, as it doesn't really add much to our understanding of the topic.
  • "each had a unique style" see above
  • "The Willey disaster started a new awareness of the American landscape and the raw wilderness of the White Mountains." (No, it's not enough that this is sourced to a single source, it's too broad of a statement).
  • "This allure — tragedy and untamed nature — was a powerful draw for the early artists who painted in the White Mountains of New Hampshire." (same as above, too broad)

We're talking about art. The beauty of the region is important to the topic. If I water down the language, what's the significance of the topic? Please suggest some rewordings of some of the above to avoid my over-enthusiasm. Thanks. JJ (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a sample of the language from the FA El Greco. I have italicized the over-enthusiastic language. JJ (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

El Greco's dramatic and expressionistic style was met with puzzlement by his contemporaries but found appreciation in the 20th century. El Greco is regarded as a precursor of both Expressionism and Cubism, while his personality and works were a source of inspiration for poets and writers such as Rainer Maria Rilke and Nikos Kazantzakis. El Greco has been characterized by modern scholars as an artist so individual that he belongs to no conventional school. He is best known for tortuously elongated figures and often fantastic or phantasmagorical pigmentation, marrying Byzantine traditions with those of Western painting.

Well, El Greco was promoted a year and a half ago, and FA standards have improved dramatically since then. That said, saying "this other article does it, so why can't this one" isn't really much of an argument. Since this is an encyclopedia, every article should keep a bit of distance from it's topic, regardless of whether the topic is politics or art or geometry or music. So, to reply more directly to your concerns: it's not that we have to ignore the beauty of the area, since it seems that's exactly what drew so many artists to the region in the first place. But to tell the reader it's beautiful as a matter-of-fact is a mistake, since it's a matter of opinion. So, I've added some more specific suggestions to the quotes I've pointed out to try and help you out. Drewcifer (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overall the lead needs some work. Namely, per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the article and nothing else. So, in other words, it should not introduce information that isn't presented elsewhere in the article and in more detail.

I have read the lead again, and it summarizes the material to follow. I find no information that is not presented elsewhere. Can you re-read and help me here? JJ (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Since this is an American topic, dates should be in American format (Month DD, YYYY).

I found and changed one occurrence. JJ (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The Willey home, however, was left standing." Short, fragmented sentence.

Deleted "however." JJ (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "painting by Thomas Hill (1829–1908) of Crawford Notch" Here you are referring to the place Crawford Notch, not the painting, correct? (The painting is obviously referred to when you say "painting"). In that case, Crawford Notch should not be italicized.

I have made it clear that Crawford Notch is the title of the painting. JJ (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The external link in the caption for the Crawford Notch picture should go. That link would be better placed on the image page itself, but not here.

That's it for now, I'll try and review more of the article soon. Drewcifer (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. JJ (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with some of Drewcifer's comments about language. The writing in featured articles is supposed to be compelling, even brilliant, not dead. It is also important to distinguish between flowery language and critical commentary. The sentence in the lead, "These early works portrayed a dramatic and untamed mountain wilderness", summarizes some of the information in the sentences "The Willey disaster started a new awareness of the American landscape and the raw wilderness of the White Mountains", "This allure — tragedy and untamed nature — was a powerful draw for the early artists who painted in the White Mountains of New Hampshire" and "The works of these early artists depicted dramatic landscapes and man’s relative insignificance compared to nature". This information is critical commentary on the origins of the movement, and the art produced by early artists.

Not only are all of these sentences sourced, but the footnotes provide specific quotations from the sources (Purchase and McGrath) in support of the statements made. I don't think these sentences need to be removed. One option for dealing with this sort of commentary is to provide direct quotations in the body of the article. Another is to attribute the commentary in the body of the text. In this case, adding a phrase such as "According to (art critic?) Eric Purchase" in one place may be helpful, but I don't think it is essential.

I agree with Geometry guy. If I rewrite to eliminate language that brings the topic alive, it will be a dull and boring article. I guess my latest approach will be to provide more quotes to substantiate the claims. JJ (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning "The beauty of the region was soon to be shared by others who, because of lack of means, distance, or other circumstance, could not visit but were able to purchase paintings or prints depicting the area", the problem with this sentence is not the word "beauty", but the unencyclopedic sentence structure resulting from "was soon to be shared". I suggest a sentence of the form "The circulation of paintings and prints depicting the area enabled those who could not visit, because of lack of means, distance, or other circumstance, to appreciate its beauty". This conveys the same information in a more encyclopedic way, but my prose is far from brilliant, and I'm sure this can be improved further.

One place where I do see a language issue is the use of the word "unique". In the lead, the fragment could be rephrased e.g. in the form "they took different approaches to the composition" (or whatever is a more artistic way of saying this!). In "he developed a unique style of his own" and "unique location", the word "unique" is redundant.

Also I agree with Drewcifer that "The images stirred..." sentence needs to be reworked. I suggest turning to the sources for inspiration. Geometry guy 18:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree with Geometry guy somewhat (since he disagrees with me), but I believe there's a good middle ground in there somewhere. I think we can both agree that the key is in the sources. Like I said above, my intention isn't to ignore the beauty of the area, but to avoid describing the area as matters of fact. For instance, "these early artists depicted dramatic landscapes". How does one define a dramatic landscape? Because its at sunset? Because it shows alot of it? Because there's a waterfall or something really cool in the painting? And what is dramatic to you might not be so dramatic to someone else. So instead of describing the art/landscape/area in your own terms, turn to the sources instead, since a) they probably know more about the topic then we do, b) they are an authority on the topic, and c) we can attribute matters-of-opinion to specific sources, rather then presenting them as fact. The way the above sentence is worded, you are telling the reader that the landscapes are dramatic, which I see as a problem. So, the best solution is to incorporate sources into the prose, either/or by saying "So-and-so said that..." and/or including quotes wherever the prose requires it. Drewcifer (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Geometry guy

I start with just one comment, in the form of a question. One of the FA criteria is that an Featured article should be comprehensive. Is this article comprehensive?

Since I'm not an expert on the topic, I can't judge this accurately, but it seems to me, given the size of the movement, and the number of references in the bibliography, that there is probably a lot more that can be said about White Mountain Art. The article is currently only 32K, so there is plenty of room for expansion. I think a 50K article would be reasonable, if there is encyclopedic information to convey. One possible missing topic is a section on critical response to White Mountain Art. The article does, of course, provide critical commentary on the paintings and the development of the movement, but it doesn't discuss the development of this analysis or compare different analyses with each other. Another area is its legacy: if the movement came to an end, did it influence the development of other movements and artistic styles? I also think there is room for further expansion of the art and artists themselves. Geometry guy 18:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)