Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Wedding Dance/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 by GrahamColm 15:06, 1 July 2012.

The Wedding Dance

 * Nominator(s): ⇒ T A  P  21:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have addressed all issues in the peer review and would like this to become a FA. It's a quite new article; created on 4 June, lead DYK hook on 9 June and GA on 14 June. ⇒ T A  P  21:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments: It looks like the prose needs a little work, here are some examples.
 * "As was customary then,when the brides wore black and men wore codpieces."
 * ✅. ⇒ T A  P  15:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Robert L. Bonn, an author has described the paintings as "superb examples" of anthropological paintings" The introduction here is a bit jumbled.
 * ✅. ⇒ T A  P  15:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "People could not swing their arms or legs or laugh too loud, as that would be considered rude to many." Do you mean that many people would consider these actions rude? Or that these actions were considered a type of rudeness that affected many people? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. ⇒ T A  P  15:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A few more examples, I suggest you find someone to copyedit this. User:Ceoil has written many featured articles about paintings, he might be helpful.
 * ✅ on talk page. ⇒ T A  P  16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Walter S. Gibson, an art historian also views the paintings" need a comma to close the appositive here.
 * ✅, easy enough. ⇒ T A  P  16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * " Voyeurism is shown throughout the entire work amongst many of the people." Could you go into more detail here? You mention voyeurism once but don't say much about it.
 * ✅. ⇒ T A  P  16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "The father represents a figure from court dances, which Bruegel painted around." This sentence is unclear to me.
 * ✅, no need to include. ⇒ T A  P  16:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Wedding Dance is a painting using the tempera technique on an oak plank, also known as oil-on-panel." We know it's a painting, no need to tell us that again.
 * ✅. ⇒ T A  P  16:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "On the right of the work, there is a musician playing on a pijpzak, the figure watching the dance." I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
 * ✅. ⇒ T A  P  16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "In all three of the paintings, there are pipers playing the pijpzak (bagpipes), they also exude pride and vanity, for example in The Peasant Dance, the man seated next to the pijpzak player is wearing a peacock feather in his hat." I think this is a comma splice. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. ⇒ T A  P  16:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Procedural comment - the PR is still open, it would need to be closed before an FAC can proceed. Also, I see that one of the commenters at the PR noted "Its way off being FA standard! I honestly can't see it becoming a featured article", and only two days ago you yourself said "My initial aim was FA, but I guess that won't happen". Given that, can you explain why you chose to nominate it now? (To be blunt, looking at the article, I can't say I disagree that it's short of FA quality right now). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have addressed issues in the peer review and that user said off-wiki that I could nominate the article if Iike. ⇒ T A  P  06:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Peer review archived. Can this please continue? Thanks! ⇒ T A  P  15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Summary (so far): All issues addressed. ⇒ T A  P  19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This article doesn't stand beside Wikipedia's featured articles on artworks. It feels like a pastiche of web sources and Google Book previews. There are no citations to journal articles, such as "Bruegel's Festive Peasants" in Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art (JSTOR). There is no discussion of Bruegel's unique perspective, which can be found in (this is admittedly obscure, but an online lit search would reveal it) Theory of Narrative, Altman, Rick, Columbia University Press, 2008. The writing has numerous problems; "described these trilogy of works", "[two other paintings] are also by Bruegel which share the same wedding theme", run-on sentences, not to mention a number of grammatical sentences that lack nuance, flow and context ("Voyeurism (spying on people engaged in intimate behaviours) is shown throughout the entire work amongst almost all of the people" [end of paragraph]). In short, comprehensiveness and prose. I find it unlikely that the article can be improved during its stay at FAC. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have requested User:Ceoil to copyedit this article. ⇒ T A  P  06:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The prose needs more work - this Voyeurism is depicted throughout the entire art work; - seems grossly inaccurate; especially given the modern day sexual connotation of voyeurism. IMO the article needs a lot of work...Modernist (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.