Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benedetto Pistrucci/archive1


 * 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 by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2017.

Benedetto Pistrucci

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a most talented but temperamental artist. In a way, Pistrucci's career can be divided into two periods, one as a rising star, the second as a bitter sinecurist. Still, his brilliance lives on and is familiar through his iconic design of Saint George and the Dragon. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Ceranthor Comments

 * Filippo satisfied his father with enough academic achievement that he was allowed to take a job with a painter named Mango, - Any idea of his first name, since you mention the brother Giuseppe? I assume not, but figured it was worth asking
 * Not known.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * With the Pope and French having made peace, - I assume you meant the French here?
 * I thought I would save a word here. Is it really necessary to say "the"?


 * stabbing him in the abdomen before Pistrucci repelled the attack - How can he repel the attack after being stabbed? Wouldn't repelling it imply that he prevented it?
 * The wound was apparently not serious enough to incapacitate him, and he fended off further attacks. Is there a term you prefer?
 * Well I feel like you should clarify that he fended off further attacks then.
 * A little late, but I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Pistrucci was willing, and after making provision for his family left Rome with Bonelli - Isn't it making provisions?
 * No, to make provision for someone is to see to their future needs, sometimes in a will or trust. It's properly used here.


 * the brothers refused to accompany Bonelli further, and after threats, the dealer departed. - Threats from whom?
 * but the allowance was stopped after 1830 as it had come to light that each resided aboard - Aboard? What does this mean?
 * Oops. Should be "abroad". They had not joined the Navy ...


 * References look solid.

Great work.  ceran  thor 19:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Except where noted, I've made those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Prose looks great and the references seem reliable.  ceran  thor 22:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
I shall certainly be supporting the elevation of this article to FA, but I offer some fairly minor suggestions before I take the King's Shilling:
 * Lead
 * As the article is in BrEng I suggest 'likely best known' should be 'probably' or 'perhaps' best known. The 'likely' construction is not much used in these islands. There are two likelys in the lead and more in the main text.
 * Pistrucci also was hired by the British government – similarly, 'hired' strikes a slightly false note: I think 'engaged' would be the idiomatic BrE version. ('Hired', I should say, would normally be used for bricklayers, housemaids etc rather than more elevated personages such as Pistrucci.) There's another 'hired' later in the lead, and more in the main text.
 * Early life and career (1783—1815)
 * They were forced to move to Rome … due to Napoleon's invasion – younger BrE speakers will probably disagree with me, but I was taught that 'due to' is an adjective and can modify only pronouns and nouns: I think you want 'owing to' or even better 'because of' here.
 * Napoleon had put a price on Federico Pistrucci's head – rather a tease! Do we know why? On the face of it his day job wasn't something that Napoleon would obviously object to.
 * I went and took a look at Pistrucci's account and he said that his father had prosecuted some Bolognese who had fomented a revolt to facilitate Napoleon's entry. It's quite likely that he was an investigating judge. I think it to detailed to go there. Since Pistrucci Sr was a member of the papal government, that's enough in my view to motivate Napoleon.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

**Pistrucci's obvious talent made his fellow apprentices jealous – I get in a dither about the difference between jealousy and envy, but I think perhaps they were envious rather than jealous. A modest haul of quibbles, in all conscience. I thoroughly enjoyed this article, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course.  Tim riley  talk    20:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Rise to prominence (1815—1819)
 * likely caused by Bonelli's malice – another place where I’d recommend probably.
 * connoisseur Richard Payne Knight – again, I show myself in my colours as an old fossil, but I don't regard the false title as suitable for use in formal BrE, and I'd put a 'the' in front of of connoisseur.
 * Last para: you tell us twice that the advance payment allowed P to bring his family over from Italy.
 * Conflict at the Mint (1820—1836)
 * King William IV took the throne on George's death – I think I might say 'came to the throne' rather than took it, which sounds a bit like a coup d'état.
 * Appraisal
 * In the last sentence of the first para there are what look like em-dashes in the date ranges, where I think you probably want en-dashes.
 * Thank you for the review and it's good to see you back. I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support now added. It's a pleasure to review articles as readable as this one.  Tim riley  talk    10:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Adityavagarwal

 * No formatting issues. Also, no issues on coyvio. 13.6% at max, and that too with trivial things. Excellent sources. Good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil
Reading through. The article crosses over from numismatics into visual arts, and am reviewing from the latter POV.
 * Lead
 * Pistrucci also was engaged by the British government - drop "also", maybe switch engaged to employed or contracted or subcontracted as appropriate
 * where he would live most of the rest of his life - tense -"lived for"
 * His skill with cameos quickly made him prominent in London - We have already established most of this this already (became prominent) (as a cameo carver), maybe "his reputation brought him to the attention of (London luminaries?)".
 * which debuted in 1817 - 'was issued' rather than debuted?
 * probably promised Pistrucci - ppP; likely promised?
 * I refer you to the review of the esteemed Tim riley, supra.
 * "The Mint forbore to dismiss him" - 'forbore' is too restrained and polite imo for a lead; "declined", and maybe give brief reasons.


 * Early life and career
 * His elder brother Filippo showed artistic tendencies from a young age (the third child, Catherine, died at age 21), but Benedetto showed - Either instance of 'showed' could become 'evidenced'
 * had property in Bologna and Benedetto began...comma, 'where Benedetto began'
 * Napoleon had put a price on Federico Pistrucci's head, and the family fled Rome when the French advanced towards it, stopping in Frosinone - there is a lot here..not sure the punctuation / construction gives due to the cause and effect. But I havnt spent the last few months immersed in the sources, so highlighting, and your call. Towards it is implied.
 * Granted, but if I cut it, there will be ambiguity as to whether the French or family stopped in Frosinone.
 * Was thinking more of expansion than cutting. Ceoil (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * here, he quickly showed his artistic talent - His abilities became apparent. Not fond of "showed", as it has other implications (commercialized, sell out, though I realise the irony in that we are taking about currency design here)
 * were being unscrupulously sold as antiques - 'unscrupulously' carries too much moral weight for an ency; maybe 'sold as counterfeit antiques'.
 * and one provoked a fight with him, stabbing him in the abdomen *before* Pistrucci fended off further attacks - so he was attacked en mass by various people in a single incident? I'd make more of this if so; conspiracy, gathering, attack, aftermath, and do we know if "they" intended to wound or kill.
 * Pistrucci felt Morelli was seeking to profit too much from his ability - Not sure what is meant here, it could be a number of things. "Too much" implies that a point was reached, but Pistrucci's criteria are not explained

More later. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Done or respond to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like Brian has gazumped my review and provided a very comprehensive further review. I'm basically Support with one question re tense                                                                   that I'm struggling to articulate but can give an eg of - "the father of the man who had adapted" - dont see the need to use the word "had" here; its an odd tense to my ears, and takes from the article's pace. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm inclined to let it stand. It's past both for events in the article and the reader earlier was told of the incident, so "had" seems to fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
I'd never heard of Pistrucci before reading this article, and it's a fascinating story. What a hive of intrigue was the early 19th century Mint! My list of comments is lengthy, but they are mostly nitpicks, quite easily fixed.
 * Lead


 * "...the George and Dragon design was returned to the sovereign, and is still used today". I'd say "sovereign coin", to avoid confusion with the monarch. Also, "restored" rather than "returned"
 * MoS guidelines advise against relative time references such as "today".
 * My test about such things is would some one come here to change the article if the situation changed (not me, that is)? And I think it's prominent enough that it would.
 * Early life


 * "papal government" – perhaps a pipe to Papal States
 * "(the third child, Catherine, died at age 21)": Suggest delete. it's not relevant, and it disrupts the sentence where it's inserted.
 * "The family had property in Bologna and Benedetto began his schooling there, but they were forced to move to Rome in 1794 because of Napoleon's invasion of Italy, and he was enrolled in the Roman College". The sentence reads a little clunkily. Perhaps: "Benedetto began his schooling in Bologna, where the family had property, but they were forced to move to Rome in 1794 when Napoleon invaded Italy, and Benedetto was enrolled in the Roman College".
 * Link Bologna and Roman College
 * The sentence mentions only Benedetto, though the previous one   refers to both sons' schooling, as does the opening sentence of the next paragraph. Do we infer that the brother was educated elsewhere in Rome?
 * Do we have a year for when Benedetto began to work for Mango, and are we to assume that his formal schooling ended at that point?
 * No date. Most accounts of PIstrucci's early life derive from his own, and he didn't use many dates.


 * Redlinks: you have them for Giuseppe Cerbara and Nicolo Morelli, but not Giuseppe Mango or other names.
 * Year in which Pistrucci won the competition to make a cameo of Elisa?
 * No date, I fear, per the above.


 * "Filippo Pistrucci had decided that Bonelli was not to be trusted" – do we have any notion as to why he decided this?
 * Reviewing Pistrucci's original, he says that the brother realised Bonelli was contradicting himself about England, though it isn't clear exactly what about. I don't think it worth including.


 * "and after threats from the dealer, he departed." The syntax doesn't seem quite right. Suggest: "and after threatening them, the dealer departed".
 * Maybe give a date for Waterloo. Does the six-month interval between the battle and Pistrucci's departure justify the "not until" wording, which perhaps suggests a rather longer delay?
 * I'm drawing that pretty straight from the source.
 * Rise to prominence


 * "the great naturalist" – well, yes, but "great" possibly breaches MOS:OPED
 * I'd remove the comma after "connoisseur" and place it after "came by"
 * "Lady Spencer showed Pistrucci a model of Saint George and the Dragon by Nathaniel Marchant and commissioned him to reproduce it in the Greek style as part of her husband's regalia as a Knight of the Garter. Comma needed after "Marchant"
 * What/where is Brunet's Hotel? According to this it was in Leicester Square.
 * Yes, that's the one. It's where he stayed after the arrival in England.


 * Link jasper
 * Pipelink Kevin Clancy
 * "The design, with Saint George bearing a sword rather than a spear, is ordinarily seen on the sovereign, was also used for the crown from 1818" – needs an "and" after "sovereign"
 * "Pole most probably offered..." Would it be more accurate to say that Pistrucci "believed that he had been offered" the chief engraver's post? That appears to be the gist of the Craig quotation later in the paragraph.
 * I think most writers accept some sort of offer was made. I'd rather not paint PIstrucci as possibly having made it up. Craig is fairly hostile toward Pistrucci.


 * Perhaps reword one of the two "According to..." openers in this paragraph.
 * "against Napoleon" → "who had defeated Napoleon"?
 * Conflict at the Mint


 * "The King despised Pistrucci's work for its bloated expression". Is "despised" the best word, with its connotation of contempt rather than mere dislike? And I'd say "image" rather than the more general "work".
 * Several of the sources are pretty clear the King really didn't like it, but I don't know how much of it is later writers looking at what does seem to be an unflattering portrait.


 * "This version was struck from 1821 to 1825, but Pistrucci's design would be thereafter absent...": "This version" is slightly ambiguous, so for clarity I suggest "Petrucci's version was struck from 1821 to 1825,  but his design would be thereafter absent..."
 * I've added "reverse" to remove the ambiguity. I'm saying "this" to distinguish it from the 1817-1820 version.


 * "Despite King George's dissatisfaction...": Perhaps it's more a case of "Aware of King George's dissatisfaction..."? We have "despite" again in the same paragraph.
 * "to be appointed to the post" → "for appointment to the post"
 * Clarify that Tierney was the incumbent Master
 * The Duke of York was by 1827 the King's late brother.
 * "that was popular in royal circles mounted in rings" Needs rewording - it wasn't the royal circles that were mounted in rings.
 * I've adjusted the latter. Between the Duke's death in January 1827 and the word "memorial", I think the present language can stand.
 * Later career and death


 * "Labouchere stated when questions were asked in the House of Commons..." Maybe better turned: "When questions were asked in the House of Commons, Labouchere stated..."
 * "claiming to have invented a new process..." That wording suggests a degree of doubt, an implication that the claim was unsubstantiated. Do we have any information as to whether the claim was justified?
 * " The following year, Pistrucci left for Rome to take up a position as chief engraver at the papal mint, but returned to London a few months later, deeming the salary too low." Most puzzling. Having taken up a post in Italy, surely he was not allowed to retain his London appointment at the Mint? Or to return to his old position at his convenience, without a word being said? In view of his fraught relations with his London employers, such licence seems implausible – do we have further details?
 * Regrettably not. Multiple sources say the same thing.


 * "The Master of the Mint, William Gladstone in 1844 restored Pistrucci's salary to the full £350 and offered him £400 to compete the Waterloo Medal". Better if "In 1844" leads the sentence. And I assume "compete" should be "complete"?
 * "and was paid the remaining balance of £1,500." I'm having difficulty reconciling the figures. From the information given, Petrucci's fee for the medal was £2,400. It seems he had been paid £1,700 of this by 1823 (there may have been further payments subsequently). In 1844 Gladstone offered him £400 to finish the job, yet five years later he's paid another £1,500. How was that balance computed?
 * The 400 was probably a bonus, but I agree, the figures are difficult to reconcile. I imagine some part of it was materials and expenses. No source really sheds light on this. There's probably a ledger in the Royal Mint archives that would clear this up
 * Appraisal


 * At some point, possibly before now, you should mention that the various coins mentioned in the first para of this section (sovereign, silver £20, crown) are no longer circulating coins in the British currency. The sovereign is for bullion, the Crown and £20 are commemorative.
 * The crown had at least some circulating function in the 1887-1902 era but I'll play with it.


 * "of the criticism of Pistrucci" could be shortened to "of criticism"
 * I think I've gotten everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy to give my support when these issues have been considered. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: I might have done one or two things a little differently myself, but those on are minor matters of personal choice. Very absorbing stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you indeed, very grateful. Understood.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Cameo_of_Benedetto_Pistrucci.jpg: what is the date of death of the illustrator?
 * 1881. Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * File:1915-half-sov-reverse.png: what is the copyright status of the photo? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Swapped for one of the Met's images, and I've adjusted the license there. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gertanis

 * "Benedetto Pistrucci was born in Rome on 24 May 1783, second child and second son of Federico Pistrucci" – do we need 'second' twice?
 * I'm open to suggestions.


 * Can we have a link to latin schools and Napoleon?
 * We have two 'but's in this para. Maybe one could become a 'yet' or a 'however'?
 * Did the whole family relocate to Rome, or just the sons? I'm confused by the two 'they's...
 * "Napoleon had put a price on Federico Pistrucci's head" – what had he done to deserve that!?
 * "Filippo satisfied his father with enough academic achievement that he was allowed to take a job with a painter named Mango, but deprived of his brother, Benedetto..." – can we have another comma after 'but'?
 * I see your point but on balance I think it's better as is.


 * "With the Pope and French having made peace" – needs def article
 * Isn't "he did well" a touch informal?
 * "...one provoked a fight with him, stabbing him in the abdomen before Pistrucci fended off his attacker." – something about this sentence does not parse. Maybe something like "before he was able to fend off the attack/assault" would work better. I dunno.
 * link for cameo (carving)?
 * "...daughter of a well-to-do merchant; they had nine children together" – why the semicolon? I'd try "...with whom he had nine children"
 * Because it opens slight uncertainty as to whether he married merchant or daughter, whereas with the semicolon there is none.


 * "the brothers refused to accompany Bonelli further, and after making threats, the dealer departed" – maybe another comma after 'and'?
 * Because I don't think the prose needs as much of a pause there as would be provided by an ", and," It's really the same thing as the ", but," above. I see this more as a writing style thing.


 * "With his daughters Maria Elisa and Elena, both gem engravers, Pistrucci in 1850 moved from Old Windsor to Flora Lodge, Englefield Green, near Windsor." – I don't like starting the sentence with 'with'? I'd restructure the whole thing, like "In 1850, Pistrucci moved with his daughters etc."
 * "After the death of Thomas Wyon Sr (the father of the man who had adapted Pistrucci's designs)" – do we have something more specific than 'the man'? Also, I'm not that fond of parentheses out in the open prose—try dashes.

FWIW Gertanis (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. Except as noted, I've done as you suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose; I made a few tweaks. Gertanis (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.