Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Founding Ceremony of the Nation/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2017.

The Founding Ceremony of the Nation

 * Nominator(s): 如沐西风(RúMùXīFēng) (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a very well known painting (in certain parts of the world) with a fascinating history. Few paintings have been buffeted so often or so dramatically by the winds of political change while in the final analysis, remaining more or less the same.Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly has a fascinating history, and am delighted to see this here, both from an art historical and social political point of view. I met this at PR, need to read through again before casting a vote. In terms of the former bent, I don't like kitsch or cheap sentimentality, which aesthetically is what this amounts to, but have a long interest in Mao's bleak approach to the arts, which this page details and services very well. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Dank
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919
An interesting subject both artistically and historically. I made some edits (revert or modify as appropriate), and have just a few comments/questions: Overall this is looking really good. --RL0919 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since Mao, etc., were leaders of the Communist Party of China, and the painting concerns an event of special meaning to the Party (not just any ideological communists), shouldn't 'communist' be 'Communist' in most/all cases in this article?
 * "Dong was commissioned to present a visual representation ..." The use of 'present' and 'representation' give this a repetitive air. Perhaps an alternative could be used for 'present', such as 'create' or 'paint'.
 * "Although Dong later complained that never in his career had he been allowed to create the painting that was uppermost in his mind ..." I'm not sure I understand what this means. Is this in reference to the changes to this painting suggested by other artists, as mentioned later in the article? Or did he desire to paint some other subject that was forbidden? Or some other meaning?
 * The fact that the new flag flies over the people is mentioned twice under "Subject and composition" (in the first and third paragraphs). It seems redundant; similar elements, such as the lanterns, are mentioned once.
 * The quote, "seeing it as a testament to the young nation's evolving identity and growing confidence", is given a refnote, but not attributed to anyone in the main text.
 * Alt text for images would be helpful.
 * Thanks. All done except the alt text.  Due to past experience, I don't think I do alt text well and prefer to leave that for others.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on prose. The alt text is desirable, but not a content guideline, so not a reason by itself to oppose. I may take a crack at adding it later. --RL0919 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, and thank you for your understanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments (Brianboulton)
I've been looking for a suitable vehicle for a limited return to FAC reviewing after months of enforced absence, and this looks just the ticket – short(ish), historically and artistically significant, and well-prepared. I am confining my comments to where I feel competent – questions of style, clarity and MoS observance etc. Nothing major, I'm sure.


 * Lead and Background
 * I am dubious about the hyphen in "most-reproduced"
 * There is a question of inconsistency of style when you refer to "the Chinese artist Dong Xiwen.." but later, in the Background section, to "arts official Wang Yeqiu" and later to "Deputy Minister of Culture Zhou Yang" before returning again to "the art critic and official Jiang Feng". With or without the is equally acceptable, but I think we should be consistent in what form we use.
 * Note: this issue has not been addressed – what have you decided to do? Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Very sorry, thought I had.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Subject and techniques
 * "...and in the distance is represented the nation of China...": It is not clear to me from this, how the nation of China is being represented in the painting.
 * The green belt you see, I imagine. The source is not specific, but what else could it be?
 * OK, but you could elaborate the text slightly: ""...and in the distance is represented the nation of China in the form of a green and fertile plain..." or some such wording. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can go as far as green, even though it's not stated explicitly in the source, it's what surrounds the city walls, which is what is being talked about.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise when I read: "Mao ... faces Qianmen, aligning himself along Beijing's North-South Axis, symbolizing his authority" I am not clear why this alignment is thought to symbolise Mao's authority.
 * That's a bit more difficult. We don't seem to have good coverage on that.  I've added "old imperial" but beyond that I'd have to add a footnote as the explanation would slow down the prose.


 * Composition
 * "He used sawdust..." – pronoun requires defining. I'd probably combine these two short sentences into: "Dong used sawdust to enhance the texture of the carpet on which Mao stands,[11] and painted the marble railing..." etc


 * Reception and prominence
 * "about it" in first line is redundant


 * Later history
 * "given its popularity" → "given the painting's popularity"
 * What is the nature of a "rural cadre school"?
 * A redundant "as well" occurs towards the end of the fifth paragraph.

Those are my meagre offerings. I look forward to adding support later. Brianboulton (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've done or responded to all those things.  I is a delight to see you back. FAC is not the same without you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: I'm happy with the minor prose changes you've made at my request and see no reason for withholding support. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your review and support. Very grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:PRCFounding.jpg needs a US PD tag
 * File:Founding_Ceremony_original.jpeg is missing a copyright tag
 * File:Tiananmen_beijing_Panorama.jpg: what is the PRC tag meant to apply to? The image is claimed as own work and China has freedom of panorama
 * There are four different images with FURs that state "To show the reader the subject of the article (one of two versions of the painting)" (my emphasis). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All fixed or in one case deleted. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
I haven't spot-checked. All ext links are working, all formating seems to be consistent and correct, and the sources themselves appear to be of the required quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Much obliged for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
Will come, in steps. First just a question: does the painter have an article in Chinese? Then you could link per ill. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead
 * "as those it depicted fell from power" - at this early stage in the article better say what "those" are. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * " It depicts Mao Zedong and other Communist leaders ... as those it depicted fell from power" I think it's pretty clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a sentence in between. It's clear, but I had to think ;)
 * I've played with it some.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Background
 * How about some year or range of years for the US and French similar efforts?
 * Done.

Subject ...
 * "techniques from Dunhuang murals of the Tang Dynasty, Ming Dynasty" - any chance to show samples of those?
 * A nice one added, that I think looks plausibly related to the painting.

Later history ...
 * "Dong had died in 1973" - could that come in chronology, not en passant after 1976?
 * I think it fits better where it is, it is the painting's story, not Dong's, and Dong's death should only be mentioned when it becomes a part of the painting's story.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

General: Are there any additional sources? An article on the painter would be even more desirable than an ill. - Readable informative article, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have gone to some trouble to find sources on this. I assume that scholars of recent publication may be in a better position than me to assess the literature on this painting, and we have such, several. I assume that they have written of the significant points about the painting. We cover things in more detail than a lot of the art articles, even FAs, I've looked through that have been around a lot longer than this painting. There was one source, an undergraduate publication at Yale, that I did not use because I felt it did not satisfy WP:RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As for the painter, I may at some point, but really all I've seen is fairly brief biographical sketches. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, happy! - A stub on the painter would probably still be better than a link to Chinese, but is not related to this FAC yes or no ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.