Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jacob van Ruisdael/archive2


 * 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) 09:17, 5 February 2016.

Jacob van Ruisdael

 * Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Second attempt for this Dutch 17th century landscape painter. Two months ago I put it up here as my very first FAC. I addressed almost all comments but it was closed before anyone voted Support or Oppose (see archived FAC1). I have since added more references, wikilinked any painting mentioned, and had a native speaker polish the prose (see | revisions since first nomination). I welcome your comments and look forward to your votes. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Support – the visual arts are not my strong suit, but this article seems to me to be comprehensive, well sourced, balanced, in good prose, admirably structured, and of course well illustrated. Two minor comments on prose. First, although the article is written in BrEng, the AmEng "kilometers" has crept it, probably inadvertently. Secondly, the false title is widely accepted in AmEng, but is disapproved of by BrEng style guides, and this rather tabloidese phrasing is repeatedly, and regrettably, used in various places in the article. I don't press the point. –  Tim riley  talk    14:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you for your comments and support. I was unaware of false titles being associated with tabloids, and have now, I believe, corrected them all. And good catch on the inadvertent spelling of "kilometer", fixed as well. Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments
 * his father Isaack van Ruisdael, his well-known uncle Salomon van Ruysdael, and his cousin, confusingly called Jacob van Ruysdael. - What does "well-known" add to this sentence? It strikes me as a little weaselly.
 * I believe something should be said to distinguish Salomon from the other two who are minor painters. Salomon was influential and his works are on display in some of the top museums of the world. However, saying all that breaks the flow, so I settled on well-known. Do you maybe have any better ideas?
 * A clarifactory footnote would be nice, perhaps. Otherwise "well-known" appears to come out of nowhere. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Isaack van Ruisdael and his uncle Salomon van Ruysdael - Worth removing the family names here?
 * I kept them because the brothers spell their name differently.


 * Jacob's earliest biographer, - Not sure this warrants its own paragraph
 * Merged it.


 * By this time landscape paintings were as popular as history paintings in Dutch households, though at the time of Ruisdael's birth, history paintings appeared far more frequently in Dutch homes. - in Dutch households ... in Dutch homes. I'd nix one or the other
 * Done.


 * a painter whose works have also been confused with Ruisdael's own - since you don't mention any other painters whose works have been confused with Ruisdael's in this paragraph, I don't think "also" is strictly necessary
 * Done


 * Ruisdael requested that he be baptised at the Calvinist Reformed Church in Amsterdam, - Just for my own knowledge: was adult baptism common in the Netherlands at the time?
 * Fairly uncommon. There were 75,000 Anabaptists in 1640 in a country of nearly 2 million.


 * he appeared to live comfortably, - would "he appears to have lived" work better?
 * Done


 * Do we know his cause of death? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it. I have not come across any source even speculating about it.

Will be back later. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ruisdael expert Slive states that the rarity of prints suggests that Ruisdael considered them trial essays, - We mentioned Slive previously; don't think we need "Ruisdael expert" here
 * Done


 * the Hermitage's most famous Ruisdael, A Wooded Marsh, dated c. 1665, which depicts a primeval scene with broken birches and oaks, and branches reaching for the sky amidst an overgrown pond. - is "most famous" in the source?
 * The exact words in the source are "About 1665, the famous Swamp, a masterpiece of world landscape painting, ..." None of the other Hermitage paintings described by Kuznetsov there have any such praise. Sokolova, curator of the Hermitage, wrote in her book "one of the most renowned paintings in the Hermitage collection". I think "most famous" is a decent way to describe this concisely, but I am open to suggestions of course.
 * Hmm... I haven't got any suggestions. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Only the Italianate and foreign landscapes are absent from his oeuvre. Slive attributes the four untraceable references to biblical Ruisdaels to his uncle or cousin. - Two questions: How do "foreign landscapes" not fit in with Ruisdael's work, when he painted the Scandanavian forests? I'm not familiar with this classification. Second, what is the connection between the motifs and the biblical references?
 * I have changed this paragraph a bit to address this. Scandinavian waterfalls is one of the 13 categories. I had failed to say that Stechow's classification pertains to Dutch landscape painting. I have now spelled them all out, having removed the enumeration in the previous sentence. I've nixed the biblical reference.


 * Unsurprisingly, - according to whom?
 * I rephrased it to make clear it's Slive's opinion.


 * by general consent, as the pre-eminent landscapist of the Golden Age of Dutch art - comma in the original?
 * Yes.


 * Most recently, - as soon as another transaction occurs, this will date. I'd nix it
 * Done

Thanks very much for your helpful comments, Chris. I'm glad you found it a nice read. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Support - Have fixed any issues I saw while re-reading since the first nom. Very well written, high quality sourcing, comprehensive and well structured. Edwin has reacted very positivily to suggestions and am delighted to see the article has advanced so much. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Overall, a very nice read. Mostly nitpicks and suggestions. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Good work. Just a couple comments above — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One thing; can we say in the lead roughly when he made the visit to Germany. This would help delineate his progression. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support and edits. I have added the year 1650 to the lead.
 * A few comments on some of your edits:
 * I noticed you have reduced the lead to 3 paragraphs. I personally like a short first paragraph, with only key info. So one that ends at "wide variety of landscape subjects." Is there any benefit of having 3 over 4?
 * Your edit "His late work, conducted when he lived and worked in Amsterdam, adding city panoramas and seascapes to his regular repertoire. " is better, but this needs a main verb.
 * Just do it, why ask. Ceoil (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you deliberately take out the waterfalls sentence in the lead or was this a copy paste mistake? With waterfalls featuring so often, and not part of the Dutch landscape, I think it should be mentioned in the lead.
 * The waterfalls sentence was stuck on to a lead paragraph, apropos of nothing. Put it back if you wish. Ceoil (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "There is difficulty in attributing of his work," I think "his" might for some readers refer to Hobbema, so "Ruisdael's" would be better. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * fine. Ceoil (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Solid piece of work, on someone who is actually rather difficult to pin down. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Johnbod. Thanks for all your guidance and comments during FAC1. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. My issues were all addressed in the prior FAC which closed before I had the chance to formally support. &#8209; Iridescent 00:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the helpful comments back then and your support. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Note -- did I miss image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone did those, then I missed them too :) During FAC1 Squeamish Ossifrage kindly checked formatting of references, very throughly, but I have added quite a few sources since, and I don't think Squeamish Ossifrage did full on source review, so both are needed. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Image review - all in order ...a few centuries out of copyright ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Source review (this version used for reviewing purposes)
 * FN 30 - used twice and material faithful to source.
 * FN 96 - used 4 times and material faithful to source
 * FN 95 - usedonce and material faithful to source
 * FN 72 - usedonce and material faithful to source

i.e. spot check all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.