Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Vincent (painter)/archive1

George Vincent (painter)

 * Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the British artist George Vincent, who was born and educated in Norwich, but lived during most of his adult life in London. He his friend James Stark were the 'star' pupils of the artist John Crome. He died young under mysterious circumstances, but not before producing oil paintings that perhaps made him one of the most talented British painters of the 1820s.

The article has had a peer review, with input from  and : I believe the article is now ready to be brought up to FA. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Support (Comments) by Johnbod

 * Link to the peer review here please.
 * Done.


 * The lead just says "was an English landscape artist." with no mention of media. The article so far seems only to mention oils & etchings, but no watercolours - perhaps rather unusually for an English landscapist. The lead needs something.
 * The only information I can find on George Vincent's watercolours is from Clifford's Watercolours of the Norwich School, where he says he has seen a few pictures, including The Needles (1830), a work that was Vincent's sole watercolour in an 1852 exhibition of loaned pictures. Clifford notes that unusually for the Norwich School artists, Vincent regularly sketched away from Norfolk and often in Scotland, and suggests that there are unattributed and unsigned watercolours by Vincent made during these sketching tours.


 * I've added a couple of watercolours to the gallery, including The Needles, and amended the lead slightly, but otherwise I don't think much more needs to be added about his watercolours. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "a grand house in the capital" - the one in Camden Town. Perhaps overstating things. "Expensive" might be better.
 * Agreed, done.


 * "His father was a worsted weaver who manufactured shawls" - judging by the context, probably more than a self-employed guy with a loom in the living room. Do we know?
 * Nothing more is said of his father as far as I know. He lived at a time when the weaving industry in Norwich was changing from individuals using handlooms in their homes to companies who employed factories workers in their thousands. It's not clear which kind of worker James Vincent was, but he was possibly the former, as he married into a respectable family. I'll see if the sources mention him any more, but I doubt they will. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The old DNB says "James Vincent, a weaver, afterwards a manufacturer, ..." and later " In April 1833 his father died, after heavy losses in business, and left about 800l. to each of his children." The new ODNB says "worsted weaver and shawl manufacturer".  Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned the money left in James Vincent's will (which might be interesting to read); nothing certain about the nature of his weaving work or his in later life business has come up, but I'm still looking. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The will is nowhere to be found, and I've not been able to find out notable information on his father that isn't already included. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * On the Kentish/Camden Town question, this edition of Redgrave says Kentish Town. The old DNB says Kentish Town too.
 * Granted, but Moore (1965) and Day (1979) say Camden Town, so I'd rather keep it as it is. There's only a few yards difference, according to this map, but I can try to pin down the house/street to see which side of the canal he lived on. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Images. There are a number of image issues. For a start, one should not have to go 5 screens (on my m/c) into an article on an artist before reaching a work by him. Nor should that image be of this deplorable quality. Really that's too poor to use, even in the gallery. You aren't using the Yale Windsor pic anywhere, with a really good resolution.  The quality of the Art UK images varies considerably - some are just too poor, while others are ok. Unfortunately the Norfolk Museums seem to release at a pretty low res.  There are stretches with no images, then boxed multiple images, which really should be discouraged, unless there is a particular point to them.  No image at the "works" section.
 * Looking at this now, but can I have a url for the Yale Windsor pic? Amitchell125 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * File:George Vincent - A View of Thames Street, Windsor - Google Art Project.jpg on Commons. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Image added. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Background' section now has a Vincent work. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at MOS:SANDWICHING, I'm unclear why you mention that multiple images are not be encouraged; it hasn't previously been brought up by others. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've amended the article to include images where they are appropriate and available. let me know if I need to do more. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Etchings. "and from 1820 to 1827 made 12 etchings of his own works, now in the British Museum" - sourced to the old DNB (by Campbell Dodgson, long head of prints & drawings at the BM), which says: "Vincent produced a number of skilful etchings from his own pictures or sketches. Few impressions were taken, and they are now scarce. The British Museum collection contains nineteen, many of which are in several different states."  Looking at their page now, it contains many more, there seem to be more than 12 compositions,  and at least 3 are called 'by Vincent, after Crome".  Does Searle actually list them, or say that they were "published" after his death? The BM doesn't refer to them by numbers in any catalogue, which it normally would.  You ref "none were published during his lifetime", but I wonder what "published" would mean for etchings from the 1820s.  Apart from these points, I don't like "now in the British Museum" as it encourages readers to think these are unique objects rather than "multiples"; many readers are very vague about anything to do with prints. Dodgson only says they are "scarce", & if the BM knew any to be "unique impressions" they would say so - I didn't see any mentions.
 * Searle largely ignores Vincent's etchings, stating that "none of them were published" without going into any details, and touching on the lack of agreement amongst sources about the number in the BM. He describes his prints as lacking Stark's refinement (not sure what this actually means) and concludes that they tend to "descend into pictorial convention". I've included much of this aleady. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your 'now in the British Museum'; phrase removed. Working through your other points. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The statement 'and from 1820 to 1827 made 12 etchings of his own works' is clearly incorrect, as 23 individual works can be seen online using the line you provided (and a few others can be found elsewhere). I've removed that information from the sentence. It looks as if more needs to said about his etchings; I'll do some work on this shortly. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Text added to emphasise why etchings were not always published during this period.Amitchell125 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The BM doesn't refer to them by numbers in any catalogue, which it normally would. - did you want me to add this with a citation (I looked for one but couldn't find anything), or was it just a comment? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a comment. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * BM - 23 separate etchings are listed, which I'm in the process of adding to List of works by George Vincent. I'll mention it in the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The BM also claims some drawings (4), with a further number "Drawn by: Samuel David Colkett, Formerly attributed to: George Vincent". Worth a quick mention.
 * Sentence added. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Has there been no sight of his "masterpiece", Greenwich Hospital from the River since 1877?
 * Apparently not. I was wondering if an exhibition catalogue might have something, but haven't seen anything yet. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can it be made more clear that it's lost in the text? Also, as a reader, the fact that his supposed masterpiece is missing seems like something that might be interesting in the lead, could just be me though. Aza24 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Since various of the sources mention prices, I think it would be appropriate to have a short section on this - even today they are strikingly uneven.
 * I'm unclear which sources you have in mind, could you point me in the right direction? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources you use have information on older prices, then there are the auction houses for modern ones. I think you've seen some of those. The art press will have more, and cover general trends. I've looked at Reitlinger, Gerald; The Economics of Taste, Vol I: The Rise and Fall of Picture Prices 1760–1960, 1961, Barrie and Rockliffe, London., and Vol. III on the 1960s, but while they cover Crome and Stark, Vincent is not mentioned. There was a big drop in English landscape prices after 1929, & they've never really recovered. But the recent Christie's price (St Pauls etc), over double estimate for a painting put into the interior decorator's sale, is interesting. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve had a look for information that discuss the sale of Vincent’s works, and I’ve only come up with auction results, which, according to WP:NOTCATALOG need to be alongside coverage by secondary sources. Looking at the other FA on artists, there’s little discussion in them of the value of their works: Etty;s works apparently fetched huge sums after his death; the article on Van Gogh only gives a few examples of works that sold for millions; Henry Moore's article mentions the price of a stolen piece, and that he was the world's most successful living artist at auction. It also says in 1982 he was the second most expensive 20th-century British artist; Ruisdael’s works sell occasionally, such as one in 2014.; Thomson - little more than the record of CAD$2,749,500 for one of his works is unlikely to be broken, and there are forgeries on the market.


 * I’ll what I can about Vincent, but there’s little of interest. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Generally seems close. It's pity there aren't more modern sources. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, happy to Support now, points sorted ok. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

 * Images are out of copyright. Normally galleries are discouraged, but I think they can be allowed for this article considering that the subject is a painter. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, User:buidhe, galleries are NOT normally discouraged - read the policy more carefully. Actually there are many issues with the images, which I will come on to in my review. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As the guideline states, "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons." Also, it says that a gallery is only appropriate "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." In most cases, this means that a gallery should not be used. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What has the first bit got to do with it? The 2nd bit certainly applies to visual subjects such as this. In fact it would be very difficult to get an FA for a painter without galleries, unless there were few or no images available. I repeat, please don't misquote policy. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of "misquot[ing] policy" when I did not even quote any policy in the comment you disagree with. I stand by my comment. According to the usual interpretation of the relevant policies and guidelines, the vast majority of articles should not have galleries (and they don't); this article may be an exception. There is no need to bludgeon someone because you disagree with their interpretation. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will continue to call out the repetition of this misleading myth (which was sort of true until about 2008, or whenever it was, when a different sort of gallery was common). It you'd been on FAC longer, you'd have a better idea of what is "usual". For a long time the policy included "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged", but that is the only use of the word it has ever contained afaik. Yet a few people continue to trot out that they are generally discouraged, or smugly pretend they are making some sort of magnanimous gesture by allowing them in this case.  When I see it I point out the mistake, and will continue to do so. If nothing else, I hope I can convince you that the uncertainty you claim to have as to whether "they can be allowed for this article considering that the subject is a painter" is unnecessary.  Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Johnbod and Buidhe, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/George Vincent (painter)/archive1 is a red link. Please take extended disagreements there, so as not to prejudice the candidacy.  (I encourage you to move the discussion beginning at 03:16 there and leave this link back to that page for other readers.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandy, would would leave it here for reference in case similar nonsense is raised on other VA FACs. John has experience and knowledge and makes a strong argument; newer participants might take the "recommendations/guidelines" or whatever they are, at face value and misguidedly concede, at a cost to the expectations of people who read these type of articles. Ceoil  (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria
Source review - spotchecks not done
 * The title of the noted 1827 work in the infobox differs from that in the text - which is correct?
 * I'm unclear what you mean, as the date follows the painting's name in italics, as intended. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox gives the title as View of Greenwich Hospital from the River; the text omits "View of". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorted.


 * Some of the caption content warrants citing
 * Could you specify the captions you have in mind? Amitchell125 (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For example dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorted.


 * Note 2: the title given for Dickes' work here doesn't match that in the references list
 * Sorted.


 * FN22: the DNB volume in which this entry was published does have a specific publication date, which should be used, and the volume should also be included
 * Done.


 * FNs 23 and 24 are to the same website but are formatted differently, and then FN44 is cited another different way - check for consistency throughout
 * Done.


 * How are you deciding what goes in Bibliography and what directly in ReferencesAmitchell125 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved Dodgson 1899 into Sources, References now only contain and.


 * Organizations like Burlington should use publisher not a work title parameter
 * Done.


 * How are you deciding when to include publication location?
 * Sources checked to include locations throughout.
 * This still is not consistent. For example The Times specifies London, but The Spectator does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorted.


 * How are you deciding when to include publisher for periodicals?
 * Please clarify which refs are an issue, as I couldn't find a problem you identified. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Amitchell125, I think you meant to here (twice) rather than me :)  I shall be along to review once I catch up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a periodical, but FN93 includes "Norwich Museums" and FN97 to the same site does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorted.


 * Search pages generally are not appropriate sources
 * Ancestry search page removed.


 * FN89 is malformatted
 * Sorted.


 * FN94: volume should be a separate parameter, but the link appears to go to a different volume?
 * There are no volume numbers for the Gazette, so I've amended the reference. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * FN97 is a broken link
 * Sorted.


 * How are you ordering multiple works by the same author?
 * All such works listed chronologically.


 * Why spell out HMSO for the second Moore work but not the first?
 * Sorted.


 * Mottram: publisher doesn't match source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorted.

Support from Aza24

 * I had a thorough read through at peer review and found all my issues addressed. My only hesitation was John's comments above, but changes seem to be progressing rather nicely so I'm happy to support this nomination. Aza24 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil

 * You rather malign John Sell Cotman based on one source...maybe a few more so its just not one person's opinion.
 * Can you point me to where you mean—Cotman should never be maligned :) Amitchell125 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In comparison with John Sell Cotman, who began etching with the aim of gaining financial security Ceoil  (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Paragraph amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Still reading through Ceoil  (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not forgotten. am I? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no...I didn't find much to complain about since last posted here. Will look again later this evening, and close out. Ceoil  (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Norwich had more locally born artists than any other similar city - I find this hard to believe. Maybe "successful artists", or some other qualification
 * Hemingway says, "Certainly, Norwich certainly produced more significant painters than any other provincial city, ..." (p. 9), without saying where he got the information from; text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * and arose from the need for a group of Norfolk artists to teach each other and their pupils....need? Later you say that later local artists did not benefit from wealthy merchants and landed gentry, so "need" may be viewed more of a matter of support or commission.
 * I've expanded the sentence, replacing the text above. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Following the ending of exhibitions by the Norwich Society of Artists in 1833, the standard of art from the city went into decline - Following implies causality. Re the rest, your hidden note re "no professional artists of a similar calibre remained in Norwich" is better.
 * Agreed, sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Until 1831 he exhibited annually with the Norwich Society of Artists, showing 106 pictures, including 75 landscapes, 6 seascapes and 16 "architectural works".[62] He exhibited in London, Manchester and Glasgow during his career.[22] He showed 9 paintings at the Royal Academy,[63] 12 at Suffolk Street.[64] and 41 at the British Institution, exhibiting annually from 1815 to 1831 (apart from in 1816 and 1828).[24] - Chronology a bit off here. Ceoil  (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * all sorted out now. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pleased to Support Ceoil  (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)