Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Lisa del Giocondo

Lisa del Giocondo edit

Hello. I'd like your help to find out if this article about the likely subject of the Mona Lisa could reach GA or A or FA in the long run. The article walks some lines of controversy but thanks to several sources a biography of her life seems to be straightforward if lean after 500 years. Also some of you might know if the Italian persons in the article are referred to correctly in English. One art history scholar for example calls her Lisa del Giocondo. -Susanlesch 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a color picture?

Yes (I missed the link to the Gutenberg color image before and have made this change). Thank you for asking. -Susanlesch 14:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?] DrKiernan 10:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, added Persondata. Also moved the article to Lisa del Giocondo, her married name, for now and the name used by above mentioned expert. -Susanlesch 13:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jeff edit

I can see the primary contributor(s) have done a fair amount of research on the topic, for which they should be commended. Here are some points that may help improve the article.

Any particular reason to use the Gutenburg image rather than the one on the Mona Lisa page?

Only because of the two sources it is most likely to be a free image.

Yorck Project had a detail in the commons. I switched to their version. Maybe someone else will know what set is best to use (I have been told the Louvre has some copyright interest and thought the images with Louvre as a source have a photographer's copyright and would like to be safe as possible). -Susanlesch 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Mona Lisa is in the public domain (in most countries if not all), Faithful reproductions do not attract copyright here in the US (in France may be a different story). Because the servers for the English Wikipedia are based in the US (I think is the same with Commons), the Louvre photographers can't claim copyright for the image hosted here. In other words, we are allowed to use any faithful reproduction here. See When to use the PD-Art tag under Country specific rules. Jeff Dahl 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the dates, right now you have this format: (1479-06-15) with the year first. Usually you would put the year last, no matter what order the day and month are in. I know that users can set their own preferences, but many users will not. Having the year listed first is highly likely to confuse a great many readers, whereas having either of the more usual formats (month-day or day-month) would be much less confusing to everyone regardless of preference. In other words, I suggest changing to (6-15-1479 or 15-6-1479, or spell out the names, see Wikipedia Manual of style, dates) for the sake of unregistered users, the vast majority.

Fixed I think.

"...whose identity became a source of scholarly arguments and fascination." Probably should say when it became a source of arguments and fascination, because right now it seems too vague.

Cut.

"For certain, the Mona Lisa is identified by France's Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs and in the national collection of the Louvre as a portrait of Lisa." This probably ought to be reworded to say:

"Both France's Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs and the Louvre maintain (or assert, contend, officially declare) that Lisa del Giocondo is the sitter in Mona Lisa." The reason is that if I read the start of the sentence, I might come to the conclusion that "For certain, the Mona lisa is identified." Which is not what is intended. What you mean to say, I think, is that For certain, the Louvre and the Ministry of Foreign affairs have claimed Lisa del Giocondo is the sitter.

Reworded. Thanks for noticing.

"...and one reason to think she and her husband cared for each other." This is ambiguous. Did husband and wife care for each other like a nurse cares for a patient (taking care of each other), or do they care for each other like lovers? I think you might reword to say "...and one reason to think she and her husband genuinely loved each other." Which removes all doubt.

Thanks, fixed.

"By luck and the ups and downs of fortune, an artist called a genius who had an extraordinary talent for painting had time in 1503 to begin it" Again ambiguous. If I start to read the sentence it looks like it is going to say "An artist called a genius" in the sense that the Artist was calling a genius (subject-verb-object). This is not what you intended. Sentences that look like they are going to have one structure and then suddenly switch to a different structure are very confusing. Try to reword it so it is simpler, or perhaps delete it, because it really does not add any new information.

Cut.

"As Lisa, the painting..." As Lisa? What does this mean?

Cut.

"As Lisa, the painting is a tender expression of real and quite ordinary people..." The painting is a "tender expression" of just one woman, not "people," which makes this sentence confusing

Cut.

"...how an artist could possibly describe feminine virtue in visual art..." again confusing

Cut.

You will want to make sure you maintain a formal tone in some of the passages describing the painting. "Viewers may see Francesco's affection for his wife ..." is an example of a sentence that is really not in a formal tone, instead this sentence is too sentimental and hyperdramatic.

For now I removed all of this section.

You are really going to have to be scrupulous in your sources. Some of them (Zollner and Muntz) are pretty strong, but some of them are really weak (Lorenzi and Johnston, for example). The prose must reflect how confident you are in the source, if just one scholar is asserting this information his name should be in the prose and use the text "so and so has asserted based on evidence from such and such that ..."

I can try to find the book Lorenzi and Johnston talk about or some replacement but maybe not until after Thanksgiving (a guess). For now, yes there are some weaker sources. The best sources there at the moment are the most used if that helps.

Good work with the research. Jeff Dahl 03:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I cannot thank you enough for the review. Thank you. -Susanlesch 07:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Suggestions from AZPR edit

Also changes were made based on Automated peer review suggestions here from APR (Sorry I moved the article and may have messed up the link at first.) Thank you. -Susanlesch 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]