Talk:Venus de Milo/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ppt91 (talk · contribs) 18:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Delighted to take this on. I hope to have the first round of my feedback ready in the next seven days, but it might take me a bit longer due to several IRL commitments. I will keep you posted as I am moving through this important contribution! Ppt91   talk   18:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No worries if it takes you longer: this Christmas/new year period is set to be very busy for me anyway! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Overall thoughts: a well-researched and well-written article on one of the most recognized sculptures in the Western canon; images do a good job at supporting the content; based on the first read, I don't see any significant issues and imagine my comments will be mostly about formatting, some prose suggestions, and minor language clarity edits.

Lead
general comments: I'd like to see the lead expanded to better reflect the carefully compiled content of the article; specific suggestions below
 * we might want to specify it's a marble statue in the first sentence (even though you discuss the medium later)


 * perhaps better to start with when it was discovered and then say it's one of the most famous? Just syntax-wise and for clarity


 * On the basis of a now-lost inscription I would add a few clarifying details about these based on later content


 * Louvre collection: add something along the lines of "Louvre's collection in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, quickly becoming a celebrated antiquity in Europe" for historical context of the museum


 * in the Reception section, you include more details about the works it inspired, so I don't think we should single out the Surrealists in the lead while not including the rest; here is my suggestion "The statue inspired over 70 poems, influenced 19th-century art and the Surrealist movement in the early 20th century, and has been featured in various modern artistic projects, including film and advertising."


 * I think you should add a sentence or two--based on Reception--about how the scholarly opinion has been more critical since its re-dating to the Hellenistic period and noting a bias in classical studies favoring written over visual sources


 * additional comments: mostly happy with the edits here, though would like to think more about the last point as However, following the work's attribution to the Hellenistic period, scholarly opinions have become more critical alongside a biased preference of written sources over visual in classical studies. sounds a bit unclear. I'll think of some suggestions for alternative phrasing!  Ppt91    talk   19:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not super happy with that. I've had a go at rewriting it – let me know what you think. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Description

 * the work is described well and quite thoroughly, although I am not sure we need so many footnotes. Do these indicate diverse—and possibly contradictory—visual descriptions of the sculpture? In other words, is there any scholarly disagreement in this regard? If so, we should make note of it; eg. "John Smith describes the torso as x, while Mary Smith suggests y." Otherwise, I'd probably remove some of the footnotes to indicate there is no controversy.
 * No, there is no controversy, and I can't see how any reader could reasonably infer from the use of footnotes that there is. Nothing in the text suggests controversy on this point (compare the sections §Identification and §Reconstructions, where it is made clear in the text where scholars have disagreed and still do disagree), and most of what is discussed in this section is basic fact that anyone can establish from examining the sculpture – are readers really going to be confused into thinking that there is e.g. some ambiguity over whether or not the Venus's arms really are missing?! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

more to follow soon  Ppt91    talk   19:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

more to follow  Ppt91    talk   20:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just checking in on this review. The lead has been changed somewhat following your feedback - how is it looking now? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Caeciliusinhorto I owe you a huge apology. I have been extraordinarily busy with work IRL and dropped the ball here. However, I would love to finish our work on this and should have the rest of my feedback in by the end of this week. How does that sound? Thank you for your understanding.  Ppt91    talk   22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * no worries - I understand that work you are actually paid to do irl takes priority! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , if you've found yourself too busy to continue this, I'm happy to take over the review. Best –  Aza24  (talk)   20:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aza24 Thank you very much, I would certainly appreciate that. Unfortunately, I have not been able to dedicate the amount of time needed to carry this out properly (which is also why I have changed now my user page to "semi-wikibreak"). I completely dropped the ball here and I owe @Caeciliusinhorto another round of apologies. Please feel free to go ahead, and I will be happy to assist/give any suggestions.  Ppt91    talk   02:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome, will get to it later today!  Aza24  (talk)   17:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Further comments from Aza24

 * Hi there Caeciliusinhorto, nice to work with you again.
 * Quick thoughts on the lead:
 * I'd strongly consider moving the IPA/pronunciation stuff to a note; there' s a lot of it, and it makes the first sentence difficult to parse
 * Good point; done
 * "The original pose of the sculpture is unknown" may not make sense to the reader; presumably, you are speaking of the complete pose? Perhaps better to say such. Or is there dispute whether the existing materials were reassembled in the correct/original way?
 * Yes, the original pose of the now-missing arms. I've rewritten this paragraph slightly; I hope it clarifies things  (There was a slight issue with the original rejoining of the torso onto the legs, but that was minor and as far as I know there is no dispute that the current restoration of that join is correct).
 * It still sounds confused; we have "The original position of these missing arms is unknown" and then immediately an explanation for it being "originally identified".... Perhaps we say "The original ... is uncertain", instead? Aza24  (talk)   00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds good to me. Changed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Excluding the both the date and dimensions from the infobox is at odds with art history standards. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) this was done to avoid matters of more complexity being oversimplified, but I don't think the debates are intense enough to warrant this. I'd stick with "2nd century BC" and 6'8" (see below). I'd also consider including a "Artist = Uncertain; possibly Alexandros of Antioch".
 * Yes, I originally removed all of these details from the infobox to avoid having to try to deal with the disputes there. At the time I didn't have access to Pasquier 1985, so the sources cited in the article gave a variation of 10cm/4 inches for the height with no two sources agreeing, so there wasn't an obvious good height to commit to. Having since accessed more sources, I'd be happy to add back 204 cm/2nd century BC
 * Thanks, I see you've done this.
 * Description:
 * This section is solid, but I fear we could use more detail, and indeed it is rather short at the moment. Some ideas
 * Expanded a little on face, drapery, and back. Is this better, or would you still like more?
 * Anything said on her facial expressions or hair?
 * The drapery is rather remarkably modeled, surely there is more written about it?
 * Anything on the back?
 * I love the Clark quote, but feel that the combination of classical and Hellenistic art is glossed over. Surely there is more to be said about the statue's evocative dynamism, as opposed to often naturalist classical predecessors?
 * more to be said about the statue's evocative dynamism, as opposed to often naturalist classical predecessors? I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Can you suggest a source which you think treats this well? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was saying that (what Clark is alluding to) the combination of classical and Hellenic styles is observable through the use of dynamic posing, which could use a more explicit mention. On second thought, I think the current is fine how it is.
 * A final thought: I'm almost positive that scholars could not have gotten the measurements of the statue off by such a large margin. As you probably realize, I'm almost certain the lower Maggidis is including the plinth, as Pasquier's measurements indicate. I would stick to the Louvre's measurements for the article text. Perhaps a note like "Alain Pasquier notes that the statue is 204 cm (6 ft 8 in) excluding the plinth, or 211 cm (6 ft 11 in) including it. While these are agreed by Brill and Maggidis respectively, Curtis instead reports 6'7'' for the former date" would suffice. –  Aza24  (talk)   04:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the biggest discrepancy is explained by Maggidis using the height including marble plinth, and everyone else excluding it; even so there's still a slight discrepancy with Curtis and the BNP (both the Louvre and BNP give the dimensions in centimetres, so they very definitely disagree here, even if only by a small amount). And Pasquier/Louvre are really the same source, as Pasquier was writing as the curator of the Louvre in an official museum publication so it's hard to consider that they have decisive weight of numbers. I think the current compromise of "over two meters" in the article text is precise enough, though if you really feel strongly about it I would be happy to go decisively with 204 cm in the article text; I don't think making the explanatory footnote less precise is a good solution.
 * Understood—let's stick with what you have then.  Aza24  (talk)   00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Discovery:
 * For your note, "The name Satios is not otherwise known"–as is, there's no record of it being used in ancient Greece? Not exactly sure about the intention here
 * Yes. Not sure how else this could be interpreted?
 * Fair enough
 * "Contrary to the usual practice at the time" – do we know why this deviation of usual practice occurred? I assume not, but worth double-checking
 * Yes, it was exhibited unrestored because nobody could agree on how it be restored.  I will look back at Pasquier and see if I can make this more explicit.
 * Any word on this? Seems like an interesting detail.  Aza24  (talk)   00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looking back at Pasquier this isn't actually explicit, and I can't find a source which does actually say this. Two sources do say the lack of restoration was on the advice of Quatremere, though so I've added something there. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it can be made clearer in the text that the statue was found with the torso and lower-halfs completely separate. The only way one could know this is by the somewhat vague "uncovered two large pieces" and the accompanying image (although I may also be entirely making up this assumption!)
 * Similarly, it should perhaps be made clearer that the hand holding the apple was also lost
 * I'm left wanting a continuation of the history...! I'm not entirely sure how the "Display" fits into an "Interpretation" subsection. I would suggest moving the Display and discovery sections under a common header, like history or (everyone's favorite word) Provenance
 * Hmm, I'm not sure either §History or §Provenance are the best headings here: history is okay, but for a sculpture made c.150 BC it seems odd to begin the §History section in 1820, and I don't think that the varying museum displays of the sculpture are really provenance. I think you're right about the section ordering, though, so I've moved §Display up to follow §Discovery, and if I can come up with a better overarching header for that section I will add it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reconstructions section looks great
 * Display
 * As above, this section should probably be combined with the discovery section
 * As above, moved Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Without a link Salle de l'Isis needs clarification of what it is. A section of the Louvre, a different museum? etc.
 * Salle de l'Isis (and Salle du Tibre, Salle de la Vénus de Milo) is just the name of a room in the museum. I'm not committed to the current text, so if you have a suggestion for rewording it then I'd be happy to change it, but I think that in context it's fairly clear that these must refer to locations within the Louvre. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reception
 * The caption of the Venus de' Medici's is highlighting information which really has nothing to do with the article subject. It may be better to note that it was originally the quintessential Greek Venus sculpture before the Venus de Milo
 * Yeah, this image and caption made more sense in a previous version of the article, I think. I wonder if a different image entirely might even be better; I'll have a look. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Clark quote is, again, nice (everyone loves Kenneth!), but seems like it belongs closer to the final paragraph of the Reception section.
 * Yeah, that's too much Clark quote for me: I love K as much as the next person, but it's really not saying anything that the article didn't already say in its own words. I've drastically cut it and moved the most quotable part into what is I think a more appropriate position. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This above point brings me to the final sentence of your lead: "scholars have been more critical since it was dated to the Hellenistic rather than classical period, preferring to study classical sculptures mentioned in ancient written sources". This is rather hard to parse, presumably you're saying that since the sculpture was redated to the more dashing and showy Hellenistic style, it has been seen as lacking in comparison. Perhaps we can stress that neglecting as a reason here: "Although appreciated in the context of the classical style, when re-dated to the Hellenistic period, scholars have increasingly neglected the sculpture, preferring works for which ancient written sources survive", or something.
 * Hmm, I've had a crack at rewriting this. What do you think now? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Still seems a bit tricky to understand, but its rather hard nuance to explain in the first place, so I'm not sure it could be any clearer.  Aza24  (talk)   00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources; external links etc.
 * Jockey is not used in the article. If you move it to a further reading section, perhaps the Vox article would fit there better.
 * All look great otherwise.
 * Anyways, great job! The main issues are the description section, a few structural things, and a few clarification. The depth of research is great, sources are high quality, and prose is solid. Feel free to get to these comments whenever in the next few weeks. Best –  Aza24  (talk)   04:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Caeciliusinhorto, no rush for this, I'm just pinging in case you haven't seen these comments above. Best –  Aza24  (talk)   22:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for taking this up. Sorry, I've been away from wikipedia for a while due to a combination of real life commitments and catastrophic hardware failure, but I've once again got access to a computer which isn't actively painful to do proper editing on like my phone is, so I've started to work through your comments. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Caeciliusinhorto, no worries, I just wanted to make sure this article was on your radar; feel free to get to it whenever. Thanks for your initial responses! Best –  Aza24  (talk)   03:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi – it's been a while, sorry!  I think I've replied to all of your comments – would be grateful if you could have another look at this when you get a moment Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll try to take a look in the coming days.  Aza24  (talk)   06:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, everything is looking great, nice work. I've just left two responses for two unaddressed concerns above (marked by the template for ease of visibility). Best –   Aza24  (talk)   00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've replied to your two notdone issues inline Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I think we're good here. I don't see any sourcing issues, in formatting or reliability. I also spotchecked a few references and caught nothing there. Going to pass the nom now—congrats!  Aza24  (talk)   23:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)