Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bonaparte Crossing the Alps/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 not promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.

Bonaparte Crossing the Alps
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it covers the topic well, is fairly well-written, and corners all aspects of the topic. I also think that it makes good use of images, formatting techniques, and is well-referenced. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would it not make sense to order the references alphabetically? MeegsC | Talk 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It sure would, I'll do it now. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅, by the way. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Excellent article, well written and sourced. No issues here.  Dihydrogen Monoxide  ♫ 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reads nicely, but I feel it could do with many more sources. There's a lot of parts that are wholly unreferenced.  Red rocket  boy  02:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Such as? All paragraphs have at least one cite, and most have more than three. Please be precise when making constructive criticism. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 04:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - the first paragraph of the second section has none. Does the one reference cover everything in an entire paragraph?  Red rocket  boy  12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies - I will cite that. And yes, when I use one cite for a whole paragraph, it infers that the one cite is for the whole thing. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 22:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - now fairly well-cited, I believe. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (And apologies for length in advance) I realize that I am not a regular here, and I freely admit that I do not know as much about FAC as the regulars, but I do watch AD's talk page, and it led me here. I would like to make a couple notes, and I realize they are lower-priority, but for FAC, I think that the little issues should be worked out, when possible. Accessibility would be an issue with this article, for a couple reasons:
 * Editors with very poor vision, have to read Wikipedia with large fonts, and low resolutions, and this results in display issues when images are forced oversized, as all the images in this article are. The first image takes up nearly the entire width of the article for someone using a low (600x800) resolution, and if one increases font size, it leaves no more than one word to the sides of images. While the introductory image is often oversized, I think this size is just a bit too large. This is in part, due to the Infobox's settings, however, and not the article itself.
 * The Image manual of style also discourages forcing oversizing, as it over-rides an editor's preferences.
 * MOS also discourages using left-aligned images under second level (===) headers, for this reason, as the text for some readers can be hidden behind the image. The image in "Historical background" is left aligned under a second level header. (To see this in action, see Mount_St._Helens, which is a featured article, but for me, much of the text is hidden behind the left-aligned images in the "General" section (for the record, I run 1680x1050 on a 22" widescreen, and use default font size).
 * The excessive citing in the "Historical background" section, third paragraph, first sentence. Six references to cite the date and number of army members? Could some of these citations be moved to another sentence, or removed without harming the verifiability?
 * The only other thing I can think that would help, is to remove the two refs that are in the middle of the last sentence in the "Contrast to David's depiction" section, to the end of the sentence. They are placed in the middle (after "mule") without any punctuation, and are a bit distracting. Since the sentence ends with "rather than a horse", moving the citations that verify it was a mule to the end of this sentence, would not change the information cited, and would move them from the middle of a sentence.
 * And, on a personal aesthetic note, I'd like to see the gallery centered for visual page balance.

I really like this article, which is one of the reasons I decided to comment here, because I'd like to see it accessible to all visually, as well as become a FA. Ariel ♥  Gold  07:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for commenting, Ariel, and for identifying those issues. I believe I have now addressed all of your concerns - I have made the first image smaller (please: is it small enough? Please, please tell me if it is still too large), I have placed the said image in the Historical background section under the first level (==) header (not sure if this actually does remedy the said issue - give me a yell if the problem with overlapping image persists), reduced the 5 cites to three (the "fourth""cite"is, in fact, a note, not a ref), moved the outsnading refs in the Contrast section to the end of the sentence, and centred the gallery. Was there anything else? Thanks again, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks AD! Great job fixing all that, and thanks for understanding why they present issues to some readers. I would still suggest removing the forced oversizing of all the images, and allowing them to be standard, by not specifying any image size. This allows users who wish to see images smaller to not have them huge, and allows editors who set their preferences to display images larger, to see them as they intend. Most of the images are forced to 250px, and default is 180. The full images can, of course, be simply viewed by those who want to by clicking on them. That would be my only concern, otherwise it looks excellent! I hope it makes it to FA! Ariel  ♥  Gold  00:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support All accessibility issues addressed, article is a fine read, a good resource, and well sourced by a wide variety of references, both online and offline. It is visually pleasant to both the average reader, and to those with visual difficulties. The issues with sourcing have been addressed, and I now think it would make a great addition to the Featured Article lineup. Ariel  ♥  Gold  07:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose The issue of the mule, a rather large part of this article, needs some work. First, link to mule.  Second, the comparison of mule vs horse conflates two other, separate comparisons:  ordinary animal with magnificent animal (grade horse vs thoroughbred), and cheaply rented/"borrowed" from a peasant vs expensively bred, bought, trained, and tended.  Some mules are magnificent animals, many horses are one step away from dog meat.  I am not sure what the real story  is here, but the discussion as it stands seems to reflect more prejudice about mules than insight into the cultural significance of Bonaparte's mount. --Una Smith (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thought about this. The paintings were made in an era when the education of a gentleman included horsemanship.  I suggest recruiting some horse people (besides myself) to weigh in on the significance of Bonaparte's mount.  Reading the little bit of text about where the mule came from, my first thought is that it is a wise man who, when riding across mountains, chooses to ride an experienced mountain-hardy working mule rather than a war horse that has lived most of its life indoors. --Una Smith (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to more clearly explain why Bonaparte chose a mule, but I will not go into immense detail; please remember that the article refers to the painting, not Bonaparte or his mule. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added more relevant information about the mule, and why it was used over a horse, in a note in the "Notes" section. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, User:Anonymous Dissident, you have misunderstood the point of my objection re the mule. The issue relevant to this article is not the man's choice of mount, but rather the social context in which the various painters depict that choice, and the meaning conveyed by the depicted qualities of the chosen animal. --Una Smith (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sorry to emerge from retirement to do this, but I still read the articles, and this one isn't FA quality. Among other things, it isn't comprehensive and needs a copyedit. Some factual errors, omissions, or misrepresentations picked at random:
 * we are never told that Delaroche is usually known as Paul (to distinguish him from his father).
 * the painting is also sometimes called Napoleon Bonaparte Crossing the Alps.
 * what is the original French title (or titles)? Or was it always titled in English?
 * nowhere does it mention that Napoleon was dead at the time the painting was produced.
 * there are at least three copies of the painting in existence, yet we don't get any history at all.
 * which copy of David's painting was in the Louvre? Almost certainly not the one illustrated, which was owned by the family of Joseph Bonaparte at the time
 * why does the info box put the location as Musée du Louvre when the original is almost certainly the version held by the Walker Art Gallery (purchased from Onslow's estate)?
 * David's painting weren't a series but five versions of the same portrait
 * considering that the reason for the commission was that David's painting was unrealistic some decent analysis of the differences is necessary.
 * why aren't we told that the reason that Napoleon is depicted on a magnificent steed in David's painting is because he requested to portrayed like that?
 * most of the elements of David's picture are "irrefutably untrue", why pick on the horse?
 * the line about the light and Napoleon's pigeon chest is referenced to a source which in fact discusses the composition of Jean-Baptiste Isabey and Claude Vernet's Revue de Quintidi and mentions David's picture only in passing and Delaroche's not at all.
 * no mention of 18 Brumaire in the historical background? I'd rate it as more important than the amount of cheese that was eaten by the troops.
 * the mule wasn't borrowed from a peasant but from the convent (as the article later states when it contradicts itself).
 * how do we know Napoleon's concealed hand is ungloved?
 * David, not Delaroche, was named First Painter (another misquoted reference) - Delaroche would have been seven at the time of Napoleon's coronation. On a similar note, Delaroche was born during the Revolution, so it is also unlikely that he was frequently commissioned to create banners for revolutionary parades. I assume this is a result of the same confusion between David and Delaroche. This error is compounded by your own statement of opinion in the last line of the article.
 * the quote from The Atheneum is reused which indicates to me that you are grasping for sources.
 * what is the purpose of the images in the gallery? Why a detail of Napoleon's face from David's portrait? How does that help?
 * many of the points raised in the initial GA review are still unaddressed, as are many of the suggestions I made when you first started work on it.
 * there are many unreferenced claims or statements assigned a reference that does not support the claim: Delaroche's attention to detail and literal precision in this painting evidences and demonstrates the slow but steady evolution of realism in art during the 19th century, and how its popularity began to rise for example is cited to a source which makes no such claim (what is literal precision anyway?).
 * It also needs copyediting. There are doubled words, redundancies, poor word choices, and vague, awkwardly constructed sentences. This could be an FA if you can find some decent discussion of the painting, but even if you correct the points mentioned above, it simply isn't thorough enough at the moment. I only look in occasionally; I'll try to look at this again but feel free to email me (though I doubt I'd change my opinion without a complete rewrite using additional sources). Yomangani talk 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Yomangani (to Yomangani) wow - great comment--Keer lls ton 09:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional notes on closing, some ref cleanup needed to conform with WP:CITE/ES. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.