Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rokeby Venus

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 17:27, 18 March 2008.

[edit] Rokeby Venus

Check external links

Only known nude painting by Diego Velázquez. Short, tight article. Co-nom with Johnbod, much help from JNW, Modernist, and Outriggr. Ceoil (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it is comprehensive enough yet:
  • I think it is comprehensive now. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is little on its influences or its influence except in the lead and image captions. Titian's Venus of Urbino probably deserves a mention. Manet's Olympia too maybe (though that's obviously influenced by Venus of Urbino as well)
    • I added Titian's Venus of Urbino as an example of the precedents and possible influence on the Rokeby Venus. I'd like to work in the Giorgione Sleeping Venus as well. Modernist (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Influences added, influence to follow today. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Times piece on Richardson gives some other interesting facts (and some contradictory ones-they say that it was brought to England in 1806 by Wellington) such as the estimated cost of repair after the attack was a whopping £100 (chiefly due to the fact she used a sharp knife and didn't hack it about too much).
    • I think it needs to be clarified that some of the reportage at the time was innaccurate and heavily editorialised. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Nudes in contemporary Spanish art" could probably do with retitling as it also covers other areas of Europe, literature and fashion. It also seems to contradict the earlier "unlike Velázquez, Goya clearly painted his nude in a calculated attempt to provoke shame and disgust..." since the same attitudes are said to have existed in Velázquez's time.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't one of the breaks with traditional depictions that we only see her in reflection? I can't think of an earlier piece that did this (though I may just be forgetful)
    • Yes. Carr is strong on this. Will expand. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There are some contradictions (or at least a lack of clarity): "an image of self-absorbed beauty" v "it is clear nevertheless that Venus is looking outward at the viewer of the painting"; and "pink ribbons" v "three colours: red, white, and grey" v "contrast with the dark blacks...and with the brown of the wall..." (white is separated from grey and black isn't?).

It won't take much to push it over the line though. Yomangani^talk 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Self-absorbed" is in a quote; I have pointed out the discrepancy in a note. We have a "mainly" for the 3 colours - and that one is actually a faded mauve has been added.Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See me below re earlier ones in mirrors. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments From the really picky department:
  • (This one is REALLY picky) The Smith, Charles Saumarez ref, the date of publication isn't wikilinked like the other refs are. (Very picky, I know.)
    • Linked. Jesus, you really got out of the wrong side of bed that morning. Ceoil (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • When I don't have caffeine yet, I am picky. The solution to this is... ply me with Diet Coke before I see the FAC page. I'm sure my spouse is open to bribes.... (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the Bibliography section, Braham, Allan. The Rokeby Venus. 1976. is missing a publisher.

Don't know where that came from. Its hasn't been used, my me at least, and I can't find anything on Google or the electronic liabaries. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Elegant solution! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(Braham was an NG bod;he revised MacLaren's Spanish catalogue - no doubt a booklet etc - not needed now anyway)johnbod

All web links worked fine. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Picky people most welcome here, don't worry. Thanks for the minute disection. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• (confl) Comments Oppose for the biting, for these motivations, for the references.** Is the section Nudes in Spanish art in pertinence with the article? / Support - now it's too good. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 08:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no, no, and no. Ceoil (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(confl) WP:BITE. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Mojska, that was a poor attempt at humour. Ceoil (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Checking the links of the page I note that http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-6287%28200102%29143%3A1175%3C91%3ATFOOTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage is a forbidden link. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a convience link to the JSTOR link for a print journal article. It's merely for convience for folks with online access to the JSTOR database, the reference itself is correctly to the print version of the article. (It's the Fernandez, Angel Aterido. "The First Owner of the Rokeby Venus". The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 143, No. 1175, February, 2001. pp. 91-94 reference). Ealdgyth | Talk 19:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You what? Its what? Forbidden? Ceoil (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I get the point. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BITE (2). MOJSKA 666 (msg) 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I can only apoligise to you once Mojska; after that, if you don't take, I just don't care, and I loose interest. Whatever. Ceoil (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not actionable, no samples of unreferenced text, bite is not a valid oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Venus was brought to England in 1813 where it was purchased by John Morritt.. - makes it sound like it came to England and then Morritt bought it. Is this right? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an English - Scottish in fact, William Buchanan - dealer bought it first. Added.Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The figure was significantly altered during its completion - sounds odd. ..before completion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by casliber (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 mar 2008 (UTC)

Has been reworded. Ceoil (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure about the characterization of 'athletic' form, as opposed to tradition of 'rounder, full-bodied women'. Source, anyone? JNW (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

L. Cirlot (dir.), National Gallery, Col. «Museos del Mundo», Tomo 1, Espasa, 2007. ISBN 978-84-674-3804-8, pp. 128-129 according to the ES wikipedia article (which also suggests Italian painter Lavinia Triunfi as a possible model) Yomangani^talk 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the eroticism of both the Sleeping Venus and the Venus of Urbino, I'm not sure the 'athletic' form description works anymore. Although the Rokeby Venus turns away her form doesn't look all that different from the Giorgione or the Titian. Actually Botticelli's Venus was pretty hot too. Modernist (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "athletic" is pushing it a bit. She's a little more svelte than either of those two and Rubens' is fairly chunky in comparison to all three. The Spanish WP says he turned away from the "exuberant flesh" of Titian and Rubens towards something more reminiscent of classical sculpture which I think puts it quite nicely. Yomangani^talk 16:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing along the lines suggested by Yomangan would be much better, though a corroborating source would still help. Also, I think that: In addition, Velázquez's showing of Venus as a reclining nude viewed from the rear was a first in art history, and was borrowed by many artists of the 19th century. would be strengthened with a cite. Don't know that I'll find any smoking guns, but I will look. JNW (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: Eliminated the 'athletic' sentence altogether, per comments by Yomangani, Modernist, Johnbod, and myself; svelte nudes occurred in classical art, Botticelli, and as a matter of course in the North (Cranach, Van der Goes). More specifically, maybe a point can be made that this was a physical departure from the Baroque nude, but a cite would be in order to back that up. Also, softened the 'first in art history' claim with more moderate phrasing, supported with Clark cite. JNW (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Points:

• "It is likely that the goddess' face was heavily overpainted during the 18th century" - not in Carr or MacLaren I think, & contradicted by implication by them and Portus.

Gone. Ceoil (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Right in fact I now notice Maclaren (n 1) says a 1966 cleaning specifically disproved this earlier theory. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• The refs to Carr & Portus are not right - the book, not article, title should be given, then 'Portus in...'. - DONE, perhaps rather crudely. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• More from Portus could be added. -DONE Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with JNW above.
• Portus addresses Yomangani's point about earlier Venuses seen in mirrors, giving several examples. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Are they purely seen in reflection? Do tell. I could only think of Ruben's Venus at a Mirror, and you can still see most of her profile in that one. Yomangani^talk 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, the several examples (mostly prints) are for her pose; for a mirror only the NGA Titian (which he says is a copy, unlike them) is mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm going to hold back for a moment to see how the article improves. It seems slightly thin on critical and compositional analysis, though I wouldn't object, in itself, to the brevity of the article, which seems appropriate for this much simpler painting than Las Meninas.

A few points:

• artists who painted licentious or immoral works were often excommunicated, and banished from Spain. I think this requires an example or two.

Indeed! For now, I will go with "could be", which I can reference. Banishment had a max of 1 year - no wonder the country went to the dogs! Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I sensed a need for more discussion of the distinction between the courtly or noble attitude to art and that of the authorities or the Inquisition who were throwing people out of the country and censoring things. Were the two elements ever in conflict? The contemporary Spanish attitude toward paintings of nudes was unique in Europe. Though such works were appreciated by some connoisseurs and intellectuals within Spain, they were generally treated with suspicion. I must say, that strikes me as probably true in some other parts of Europe.

I think this was largely for show, in that there was a blind eye policy among the elete people that mattered. What the King hung in his secret chambers was his business, and what he chose to look at in the small hours was not important to the religious authorities, long as it was known to the plebs. Ceoil (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More added on this now. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Rokeby Venus is the only surviving female nude by Velázquez, and one of only two such paintings in 17th-century Spanish art, which was often censored by the Spanish Inquisition. What was the other one? (Flicking through my books, I can see one there by Alonzo Cano, painted about the same time, showing a nude woman from behind, though she is standing. Is this the one, or have I accidentally stumbled on an extra one?)

For me, this statement comes under "likely to be challenged". Actually, I hereby throw down my glove and challenge it. qp10qp (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

O/S The dodgy Taschen Hagens claim it is the only surviving Spanish nude painting pre-Goya. MacLaren & Carr both say C17 Spanish nudes are "rare", so we had better go with that. MacLaren mentions Cano nude drawings, but yours is definitely a painting? Where is it, do you know? I now see Erika Langmuir also says this is the only surviving Spanish nude painting pre-Goya in her very reliable NG guide. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw the Cano on page 188 of Brown's Painting in Spain, 1500–1700. I've now uploaded a different copy of it to Commons: Image:Christ's Descent into Limbo, by Alonzo Cano.jpg. I think "rare" covers it safely. qp10qp (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok - not exactly what I was expecting! "portrait of a nude" is what was meant, i think, but we can leave it as it is. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• "an almost documentary interest in the form and detail of European costume in the second quarter of the seventeenth century". This point by Veliz doesn't seem related to the picture, since the comparative issue is nude painting, surely, not depiction of costume.

I added this early when I was struggling to track down sources. I agree it is too broad and off topic, but maybe if Johnbod could decide whether to trim or cut compleatly. Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't like it. V was interested in costume too (I mean, look at Las Meninas). I don't think painting nudes is a contrast with painting costumed figures except in the most banal and incidental way. And the paragraph leads on to a final point (nudes could also be controversial in France) that doesn't particularly follow from its beginning, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Booted into notes - if people don't like it there, by all means remove. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's nicely out of the way there. qp10qp (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why is the Correggio there? It is not mentioned in the text. I think a Rubens might be more appropriate, especially one known to have been in Spain at the time.

I switched it for a Rubens. Ceoil (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What an excellent choice! qp10qp (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• The painting is rumoured to depict a mistress Velázquez had while in Italy, who is supposed to have borne his child. I think it is best to lay out the origins of rumours, so that the reader can judge their value.

I've added a para on this under description. The fact of the child is accepted, and he is documented in legal records from the time as Velázquez's son. Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• While numerous works, from the ancient to the baroque, have been cited as sources of inspiration for Velázquez, in many ways the painting represents a pictorial departure. The article makes a case for its being a departure in Spain, as far as subject matter is concerned, but I don't feel this point is followed up analytically. In what way was it a pictorial departure? qp10qp (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarified in the lead and inh the article body. Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Portus covers the 2nd point in detail. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)#

Support: Although I still hope my unstruck points will be addressed, the article has improved so much that I can now delightedly Support. It's been wonderful to see all hands on deck: the article is now more comprehensive and nuanced, and the new images have given a wonderful boost to its interest and cogency as a whole. qp10qp (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Methinks we coronated the Virgin a bit soon. The inclusion of this image was based on a possible resemblance of models, which has now been upgraded to something that sounds a lot more authoritative. It's possible, and I can see the likeness, too, but unless there's a cite for this, it is our speculation, and I recommend removing the image (parenthetically, I know from my own experience that archetypes emerge subconsciously, and, especially in idealized images like these, different models can take on pronounced similarities). Thoughts? JNW (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Yomangan has moved to address this. Nice work! JNW (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is cited in the text, although, as it says, to MacLaren who does not put much store in it, but many others do. I think the caption wording is a little strong though, and should be toned down. Unfortuntely the image is stretched rather, which distorts the face. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've toned it down and duplicated the ref in case it was missed in the text. With the indistinct reflection in the Venus claiming a striking facial resemblance was a bit over the top. An earlier version had a sentence suggesting that Venus' face was overpainted during the 18th century but it was removed as unverified. Yomangani^talk 12:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's much better. See above re the overpainting. I changed the date to match the Prado. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for explanations. I did miss the ref. in the text, and yes, the mirror image is a bit ambiguous to go on. I will see if I can find a ref. for 18th century overpainting, but I don't recall such. JNW (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the duplicate ref. in the caption of the Coronation with a ref to Lopez-Rey, which I think well summarizes the discussion. Alternative thoughts welcome. JNW (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Now combined note. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I added this to Legacy - The sense of believablity that is conveyed by Velázquez posing his Venus from the rear, is paraphrased in Manet's stark portrayal of a woman: Olympia, that shocked the Parisian artworld in 1863. Although in the Manet, Olympia gazes directly out at the viewer, it is similar to our view of the goddess Venus's face in the mirror, in the painting by Velázquez.

I'm wondering if we should add the Olympia to the article. Although it would probably take the article to a different place. Modernist (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant, given Velazquez's impact on 19th century realism, but it would be a plus to bolster the comparison to Olympia with a ref; back at my studio I have the catalogue from the Velazquez/Manet show, which I might not be able to get to for a few days. Maybe we can find a good cite elsewhere (here's one, for starters, and rather juicy: [1]...I've since added it.) I don't mean to be a pain cite-wise, it's just that there are so many possible comparisons, it's nice to have the bridge between these masterpieces be airtight. Uncertain about the addition of another image. Do other contributors have strong thoughts on this? JNW (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but don't feel strongly. It is reasonable to suppose Manet saw a reproduction in the 6-odd years between the Manchester exhibition & the Olympia & we know he was a big Velazquez fan, but I'd be happier if the connection was documented. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I have been kindly asked by Ceoil [2] to offer my advice concerning logic, flow, coherence and structure. I read the article line by line, and (unfortunately for my fame as a peer-reviewer who can find flaws everywhere!) I have not much to suggest concerning these issues. It looks to me as a comprehensive and well-written article. Any suggestions I make in the following lines are probably nothing more than personal preferences and desperate attempts to find flaws in places where there aren't any! So, after offering my full support, I just remark:

• "The painting remained in a series of private rooms in private collections until it was exhibited in 1857 at the Manchester Art Treasures Exhibition, along with twenty-five other paintings at least claimed to be by Velázquez; it was here that it became known as the Rokeby Venus." This is in "Legacy", but it could also be in "Provenance" as a part of a comprehensive history of the painting.

All the owners of the rooms are covered in the provenance; this is about exposure rather than ownership. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe we go into many details, but after the "vandalism" the restoring of the painting was it an issue? I mean was it something easy not worthy to mention or are there any interesting for the reader encyclopedic details? This is what I was writing before I read more carefully and I saw the sentence "However, all were successfully repaired by the National Gallery's chief restorer Helmut Ruhemann." If there aren't any more interesting and "salty" details on the restoring, it seems fine to me.
• "The sense of believablity that is conveyed by Velázquez posing his Venus from the rear, is paraphrased in Manet's stark portrayal of a woman: Olympia, that shocked the Parisian artworld in 1863.[48] Although in the Manet, Olympia gazes directly out at the viewer, it is similar to our view of the goddess Venus's face in the mirror, in the painting by Velázquez." So, was Manet actually inspired by Velasquez or are there some similarities that create the impression of a "paraphrasis"? It is not that clear to me. And if Rokeby Venus was indeed a source of inspiration, why don't we have an image of the painting in the "Legacy" section which (the poor one!) is the only section with no painting!

Discussed just above. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the painting (Olympia), - a few hours ago, with caption.Modernist (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Cits 19 and 20 provide sources for the same assertion ("It has been claimed the model is the same as in as a Coronation of the Virgin and Las Hilanderas, both in the Museo del Prado, and other works." "It has been suggested that the model used here was the same as that used in the Venus."). They could be merged into one citation.

Indeed. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I enjoyed finding and including the Lopez-Rey ref, hence the possibility that I overlooked its redundancy. If it needs to go, slice it altogether. JNW (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think the combined one is better; MacL calls the idea "fanciful", which I think is unfair! Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• "The Rokeby Venus was intended as a pendant to a 16th-century Venetian painting of a recumbent nymph in a landscape, reversing the pose and moving the setting indoors." Is this cited somewhere within the text? Sorry if I did not notice. And is this info in the lead the only answer we get to the question "Why Velazquez did this painting?"?

It is citeable - I'll dig it out. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The situation with the pendant (last seen in a sale in 1925) has I think been complicated by the recent Coronel discovery, so i'll soften it. It's illustrated in Portus, but its not clear from his oblique references at which periods the two were together. Claim reduced, & removed from lead to lower down. Now added to again from Langmuir.Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Nudes in 17th-century Spain" is very interesting and well-written sections, but to the eyes of some readers it could look like a long digression. Have you also though that it could also be a very interesting separate article per WP:SS?

Better here I think. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure about the placing of the photo of the Borghese Hermaphrodite. Was Borghese Hermaphrodite an inspiration for the painter? Why then I see no mentioning of it in "Inspiration"?

It is mentioned, but only named in the note; some of this could perhaps be moved upstairs. The caption & this section reference the (deemed) influence to K Clark & the NG catalogue. The placing of the photo allows comparison, which seems useful to me, plus filling that awkward TOC gap. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Brought up into text now. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I initially increased the size of the image, then decreased it, its back now as a generic thumb, what about 300px? Any opinions? Its an enormously important image and influential element to the Venus. Velazquez had to be thinking about it. Modernist (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well in an FA they all should be unforced, per the MoS. I have my setting at 350px, so 270 was a decrease for me. I agree it's important. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just checked it out with my setting at 300px, I'm usually at 180, although now I am keeping the MoS unforced idea in mind, - it's beginning to look like a FA to me. Do we change all the various image sizes or are some ok like they are, the Goya and Olympia are at 300px, while some of the others are at an array of differing sizes? Modernist (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Per MoS they should all change - for once in an art article I don't think that will cause much crowding! Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• "The feminist writer Lynda Nead has observed that although "the incident has come to symbolize a particular perception of feminist attitudes towards the female nude; in a sense, it has come to represent a specific stereotypical image of feminism more generally"." The quote needs citing.

Anyone? Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't continue, because I'll find more trivia things!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Bloody good article about a damn fine painting. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very slight oppose mainly to a few small quibbles about quotations and prose. There are a couple of questions below that if you can't answer, won't affect the ability to support this article.

• • I believe you need a direct citation of the quotation in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the Inspiration section. I know you say the person who said the quote, but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you need to give the location of it.

Prater page no. needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Added. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• • the "an excessive taste for lower-class women ..." quote (while great!) needs a citation on it.

not Carr:217 Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Refed - fuller quote even better I think! Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Need a citation on the quote in the third sentence of the third paragraph of Nudes in 17th Century Spain.

Covered by the next ref.

• • Same for quote in the first sentence of the third paragraph of Vandalism.

Already marked O/s above. Now doneJohnbod (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent article, and I quite enjoyed reading it. Will be glad to support once the above issues are cleared up (minus my curiosity questions!) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to see direct citations on the quotations I mentioned, but I'm not such an MOS maven that I can (or will be) bothered to go hunt through the guidelines to see if they are required. It's not worth the bother to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support—This is so good. Just a few little things I noticed:
  • "principal precedents"—pr pr (main?) DONE
  • I've copy-edited a few sections: some intrusive and unnecessary commas and a few other trivials. OK
  • "It has been claimed that the painting depicts a mistress Velázquez is known to have kept had while in Italy, who is supposed to have borne his child"—has this been mangled by cut-and-paste? DONE
  • MOS doesn't proscribe, but I can't cope with single-digit closing digits for ranges (1642–4). Two is good. ALL DONE by Sandy-G?
  • My US dictionary says although is better in formal registers, and I'm sure the same is true throughout English. DONE
  • Check that we do need items such as love to be linked. Maybe ... SOME DELINKED
  • Velázquez's, but then "goddess'; I'm inclined to ignore the fusty rule that mythological names should have just the apostrophe (Venus'), and to insert apostrophe-es after all. That's just my opinion, though, so it's up to you.

Venus, goddess and Velazquez now all converted to 's.Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• • There are a few instances of noun + gerund, which are ungrammatical and clumsy (the result of the artist having made corrections ... --> the result of the artist's corrections ...).

That one was changed; any others? Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Quite a lot of "resulting in". Tony (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Only 1 shows on search. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Image size looks right - consistent. Modernist (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• WHATS LEFT - I make that 3 now 0 citations still needed; I'm not sure there's anything else. Many thanks to all the reviewers! Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• All my earlier comments have been addressed, and it's now a cracking article, but I think the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead needs generalising in the lead and expanding in the body: there is detail in this sentence that is omitted or even contradicted in the "Inspiration" section. I'd also still like to see something on the early 20th century claims it wasn't by Velázquez even if it is just a footnote (it's interesting to see how a painting is scrutinized when it first comes to public attention). Yomangani^talk 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the lead now has too much detail there. Also the controversial history of the painting is not mentioned in the lead. I don't have anything on alternative attributions beyond MacLaren's denial quoted above (is that in a note? - maybe). Well done finding the Pendant - it certainly doesn't look like a Tintoretto to me though! Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alt attributions now added by Yomangani. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I find some problems with flow that weren't as prominent when this started. This article has been very heavily revised since the FAC began.
  • "Description" really ought to come before "Provenance". If you're new to the painting, I don't think "Provenance", being the first section, gives you the basics that will draw you into the rest of the article.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This paragraph introduction/topic sentence doesn't work: "It is clear that Venus is looking outward at the viewer of the painting.[26] Intertwining pink silk ribbons are draped over the mirror and curl over its frame..."
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, the lead feels a bit forced. The third paragraph's "While numerous works, from the ancient to the baroque, have been cited as sources of inspiration for Velázquez..." restates the second, and in general the para is weak.
    • Has been rewritten by Yomangan. Ceoil (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know what revision other copy-oriented reviewers looked at, but they might have noticed:
    • "The Rokeby Venus is the only surviving female nude by Velázquez; such works are very rare in 17th-century Spanish art,[2] which was actively policed by the Spanish Inquisition, although nudes by foreign artists were keenly collected by the court circle." Sentence snake.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "the mid 19th-century" - the hyphen is in th wrong place.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "The conscientious modelling and strong tonal contrasts of his earlier work is here replaced by a restraint and subtlety which would culminate in his late masterpiece, Las Meninas.[12]" -- is --> are, italics
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "The credibility conveyed by Velázquez posing his Venus from the rear and in depicting the persona of a real person and not an ethereal goddess is paraphrased in Manet's stark portrayal of a woman, Olympia, that shocked the Parisian artworld in 1863.[60] Although in the Manet, Olympia gazes directly out at the viewer, the mirror view of the Venus's face is similar to that in the painting by Velázquez." Surgery needed here. The passive voice is probably not warranted, and there is a general way in which this is written that makes it so the reader has to be doing a lot of work to follow it, if you follow. :)
    • Done, but not perfect. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Now I'll go attempt to help with some of these minor edits. :)
• This is an excellent collaboration. Nice work! –Outriggr § 06:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• All points above seem cleared, though Note 6 needs formatting, & what is "roudond" in the Rubens caption? Flemish? The Maja now looks smaller to those of us who see the world on max image size. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

All done (though "roudond" ought to be a word, I feel!). Are we there now? Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• A Support from me at any roads. Yomangani^talk 17:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Done...although I can see using roudond and erothics in the next one also. Modernist (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.