Talk:William Hogarth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
High Class: This article has been rated as high-Class on the assessment scale.


WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
William Hogarth was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 26, 2006
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please add the following to the bibliography on William Hogarth:

Frédéric Ogée and Peter Wagner, eds., William Hogarth: Theater and the Theater of Life (Los Angeles, 1997) Hans-Peter Wagner, William Hogarth. Das graphische Werk (Saarbrücken, 1998) David Bindman, Frédéric Ogée and Peter Wagner, eds. Hogarth: Representing Nature's Machines (Manchester, 2001)


Contents

[edit] Hogarth Disambig needed

Could someone with admin status get rid of the hogarth - william hogarth redirect at all? There are a few other hogarth's that could get disambig status, and it would be more wiki than this current redirect!vcxlor

You don't need to be an admin to edit a redirect. If you get redirected, just follow the blue link at the top of the page back and edit the page. I turned Hogarth into a dab page and added a bunch of them. Feel free to add more. Rl 12:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage à-la-mode

The third in the series, The Quack Doctor, shows the Count visiting an avaricious and seedy doctor with two women, to ascertain which of them gave him a sexual disease.

Given only the pictures, how can one say the three go to the doctor due to a sexual disease? --Abdull 10:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed Good Article Status

I failed this article because it is insufficiently referenced. joturner 16:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How does one "fail" a Good Article? How is a bibliography of nine items insufficient? joturner is currently offering himself as Administrator. Will this be a wise move for Wikipedia? --Wetman 04:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
To err is human; I must have misread that, thinking it was bibliography in the sense that it was a list of his works (I'm so used to seeing the "References" when referring to actual works). I do have a problem with the section structure of the article, but will reinstate the nomination due to the mistake. joturner 05:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
And about the "fail" part. The title of the template is {{FailedGA}}. Perhaps "declined" would be a more appropriate word, but I'm going with the template name which has been accepted for quite some time. joturner 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I note now that the Good Article status may be failed/declined at Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations by any passer-by who is so inclined: "everyone has veto power". I won't waste any more time over "Good Articles". --Wetman 05:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I concur with joturner's conclusion but not for the same reason. The references seem appropriate to me, and the pictures are quite nice. The article needs a copy-edit to reword short, choppy sentences and avoid clumbsy wording such as, "learned to engrave shopcards and the like." I do not believe it is broad enough because it focuses almost entirely on describing and interpreting his works. There is very little about his personal life (including his death), the different thoughts/philosophy/artists that influenced his work, and in turn how his works influenced others (and who it influenced). I would imagine all that information would be fairly important, but it is nearly completely absent from the article. - Dozenist talk 13:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dont want to read all that make it shorter for people to read

please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.161.155.222 (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

15-April-2007: The article on William Hogarth does, indeed, contain numerous details; however, because Hogarth drew political cartoons, the socio-political events of the time period are addressed to explain the artwork, in the same manner as addressing Mark Twain's social commentary contained in his writings. When a biographical article involves politics, expect some of the complexity of a US President or famous state governor. Try scanning through sections to bypass excess details. -Wikid77 05:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enlarging avoid PNG

15-April-2007 - Why Wikipedia is so S-L-O-W: The article on William Hogarth is an excellent example for converting to quick JPEG images and sizing the width of images, since so many paintings are explained in the text. There was one huge PNG sketch image about the English Stage, near the top, causing a delay, so I linked to a quick JPEG version from Wikimedia Commons for rapid display of that sketch (over 6x times faster than PNG). With that massive slow PNG file avoided, I expanded the size of 6 other paintings about 65% so they seem about double in size. Wikipedia handling of quick JPEG images is quite amazing in 2007, so even though the 6 other paintings are vastly larger and easily seen now, the amount of extra image-data is still less than the entire, huge data transfer needed for that single massive PNG file which was replaced with a JPEG. PNG files are typically so inefficient that a few PNG files are typically many, many times larger than the entire article and all other GIF/JPEG images COMBINED. In 2007, Wikipedia often handles PNG files as, not just 3x times larger or slower than JPEG format, but PNG files often expand to a massive 7x or 9x or often 14x times slower/larger than equivalent JPEG files. Consequently,

  • avoid 99% of PNG files, like the plague:
  • if a painter has a JPEG painting, display that instead of a massive PNG image;
  • if only PNG files are available, yikes, make them as tiny as possible; tiny PNG files are only 3x times slower than JPEG, while larger PNG files can be 14x or even 25x times larger, slower than JPEG files of the same width/height;
  • if only PNG files are available, consider a text-link to a PNG file, instead of directly displaying the actual cumbersome PNG image, so a user can click to get the slow time-consuming delay when loading the huge, gargantuan, bulky PNG data: a text-link to an image is coded with colon-prefix ":Image" as:
[[:Image:pix27.PNG | <click to load massive PNG image>]];
  • once the devastating, crippling effect of those massive PNG files is bypassed, enlarge the JPEG images as 250px to 300px so that people don't have to "click to enlarge" just to see a basic image; highly detailed images could be 350px-400px, but usually 300px or less is adequate without squeezing text-lines to just 5-words-per-line; larger than 300px is often too big for nearby text.

An article that displays several JPEG files is likely to have more text data than all JPEG-images combined; however, an article with huge, massive PNG files will typically be 80% PNG data to 20% text, overwhelmed by the slow, cumbersome PNG files clogging Internet transmission. -Wikid77 06:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other issues

[ Place untitled topics here. -Wikid77 ]

t

[edit] Home life?

This article gives great detail of his professional career but what about his life? Did he have a wife named Jane? Children? Friends? Even William Shakespeare has more biographical information - with less documentation to go on! Shir-El too 02:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fix the clutter

There are so many images on this article that it is quite cluttered. How do you editors feel about moving most of them to a gallery at the bottom of the article? Kingturtle (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The gallery is in place. I have deleted all the explcit pixel widths from the images, which considerably reduces the cluttered effect. Is that sufficient for you? - Pointillist (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)