Wikipedia:Peer review/September Morn/archive1

September Morn
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC and would like feedback, particularly regarding neutrality (this having been a controversial article in the past).

Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
That's all from me. Mostly minor drafting points, as you can see, but the last point really does seem to me to need revisiting. That apart, the article seems to me a model of balance and impartiality. –  Tim riley  talk    10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * General
 * You are inconsistent on the matter of the false title. For instance you have the AmEng "In her memoirs, Vogue editor Edna Woolman Chase" but also the BrEng "The suffragist Inez Milholland". I, of course, prefer the latter, but whichever you pick it would probably be as well to be consistent.
 * Will keep my eyes open. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Description
 * "September Morn obliquely depicts" – not quite sure what the adverb is meant to convey here.
 * Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "ankle deep" – I'd hyphenate this
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Background
 * "In subsequent years Chabas would spend the winters working in Paris, while in the summers he would pass painting young women" – two points: there's a lot of subjunctive here – "would spend" and "would pass", which to my mind would be crisper in the plain past tense, "spent" and "passed"; and secondly "while in the summers he would pass painting young women" doesn't make sense. I think you mean "he passed the summers painting young women".
 * You're right. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "This is not to say that" – touch of WP:EDITORIAL here?
 * Was thinking of it more as a conjunction, but sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "generally been more conservative" – the adjective is not quite to the point. What you're describing here is not conservatism so much as puritanism, and "puritanical" is the appropriate word.
 * Thanks, better word. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "However, tensions remained" – I'd lose the "however", which as "howevers" usually do adds little and gums up the prose. You have eleven of them in the article, and I recommend the pruning knife.
 * Nixed... four I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Creation; identity of model
 * "that she was then aged 41" – I had to read this twice; perhaps "now" rather than "then"?
 * Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met)" – you've told us before that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is the Met
 * For the forgetful (glossed in the lead, glossed in the body).
 * History
 * "First and second sentence both begin "Chabas". The second one would be better as "he", I think.
 * Agree. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "and thus the work was sold to him. Thus" – double thuses
 * Second thus removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Controversy
 * "A full size reproduction" – hyphen wanted, I think
 * Agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Harrison went to city council" – is there a definite article missing here?
 * Not anymore. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "window upon returning" – this the fourth "upon", and one begins to notice it: a plain "on" will do just as well and less distractingly.
 * Down to two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "attributes this to him showing leniency" – gerund here so "his showing"
 * Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "American Heritage writer Gerald Carson" – even if you are going for American false title constructions, this is a bit clunky: "in American Heritage, Gerald Carson" would be more elegant and also shorter.
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the para beginning "In his 1931 autobiography", I think you need to put in caveats at several points: "according to Reichenbach" or similar. As it is, it reads as though his assertions are accepted as fact.
 * Added two more caveats. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wide-spread reproduction and imitation
 * "face a $500 to $1000 fine" – I'm no expert on US law, but can one be fined for breach of copyright? I'd have thought it was a matter for damages in the civil courts. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
 * "Penalty" in the source. Changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "thusly" – eh?
 * Nixed
 * "where its deep its awful cold" – does the original quotation omit the apostrophes?
 * My mistake. Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Acquisition by the Metropolitan Museum of Art
 * "the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) – the third time we've been told that the Met is the Metropolitan Museum of Art
 * Nixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reception
 * "The final paragraph seems to me to give undue weight to the antis with nothing from the pros. Are there no modern experts who have judged the picture innocent and inoffensive? If not, so be it, but if there are they should be represented in your final para.
 * Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks so. There are some more recent sources that mention September Morn with the terms, for instance, "charmingly innocent", but they do not seem to take heed of (or refute) any of Brauer's claims. Worth adding then, Tim riley? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly add something from them. They don't have to take note of the antis or reply to any objections: if a reputable modern source finds the work "charmingly innocent" it is quite right to quote it to balance the opposition.  Tim riley  talk    14:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Much more importantly, the MoS demands it too: "Neutrality requires that each article ... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I think that if you ignore significant viewpoints (the counter arguments here), you'll run the risk of breaching that guideline. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully we can all recognize the context in which that section was added (and indeed its been trimmed significantly since it was added). The talk page poison from a now blocked POV warrior (who turns out to have been a banned user anyways) did a number on the neutrality. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That works. I would have spun it round, so the paedophilia nonsense isn't the final and abiding memory of readers (that's just my minor thoughts on it), but you've got the right points there, and with admirable brevity. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC) 14.00
 * I concur with SchroCat about turning the order upside down. The antis get 110 words here to the 29 words for the pros. I don't see that they deserve the last word as well. I'd just move the first two sentences to the end, which would have the double merit of redressing the balance a bit and ending on a piquant phrase.  Tim riley  talk    17:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Given another tweak. I was actually thinking of ending with the commercial success (see my comments to SchroCat below, about the jumping from the 1970s back to 1913). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
Nicely put together article that seems to cover all I'd expect it to (although I am no Ernst Gombrich!) A few specific points to look at below, but much more controversial than the painting is the use of eleven "however"s, many at the beginning of sentences. I'd trim most of them out, as they can be red rags (or red flags) at FAC.

Lead
 * "Painted over several summers ending in 1911,": slightly pedantic, but there was only one summer ending in 1911. Perhaps "Painted over several summers up to 1911", or similar?
 * Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really no grammarian expert, but I would have thought it was Chabas's, rather than Chabas'?
 * Appears that most style guides recommend Chabas's, rather than Chabas', though the former gives me hives. Changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Description
 * If someone is going to be so cruel to the English language as to use phrases such as "fetishisation of innocence", then name and shame them.
 * Can't, per WP:UNDUE. Otherwise we'd have to name everyone else. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Chabas
 * "3rd", I think would be better as third, although I won't push the point if you disagree
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "while in the summers he would pass painting young women" -> "and the summers painting young women"
 * Reworked for Tim earlier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Nudity and art
 * Brauer. Who?
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wide-spread reproduction
 * "suspenders": you may want to clarify (or just omit) this example. These are suspenders in Britain and a few other places, and you certainly will make people think about lewdness if their minds go in that direction!
 * Fair enough. Gone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "persons in possession": what's wrong with people?
 * I believe it's based in the existence of the term "legal persons", but that may just be me justifying my own lack of writing skills. People now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is all very focussed on the US. Was there any effect elsewhere in the world, or was it only Americans who got hot under the collar over it?
 * I haven't seen information on any controversy elsewhere. (The Chicago and New York cases are both specifically mentioned in several overview articles, hence why I go into greater detail here). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia and Paris Acquisition by the Metropolitan Feel free to ping if you want me to explain or answer anything, and please do let me know when you go to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It jars a little to have gone through the US controversy and mentions of Marilyn Monroe, only to come back to 1913 and the move to Russia. I'm not entirely sure of the best way to do it, but it may be worth thinking of the painting's provenance in one section, from Salon display to Met acquisition, and then look at the reproduction and imitation as part of the reception. I'll leave it to you, but that may be a little more logical.
 * Was considering it, but a lot of the subsequent discussion relies on an understanding of the controversy (why were people claiming to have the original? why were people worried it was destroyed in the October Revolution?) We could move the last two paragraphs to a new "Commercial success" subsection of reception, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) in New York": you've already told us that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is shortened to the Met.
 * Done for Tim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SchroCat, though I am rather curious what you think about Tim's point on the last paragraph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and, indeed, insist: see my full commment above. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Nit-picks from Cass

 * In the first para of the lead we say that the work was completed in 1911, so why does the info box say 1912?
 * Oops! Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Songs were written about it, stage shows imitated it, and films were produced inspired by it." – a lot of repetition of "it", perhaps that was the idea, but it doesn't quite work for me. Also, "produced inspired by it" seems wrong.  I think "produced" could be lost quite easily and it would still work.
 * Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "...had only arranged for numerous reproductions of the painting to be made and sent to New York" -- "only" suggests a small, precise amount, while "numerous" suggests a vague amount, but quite a lot. The two contradict each other a bit and it would read a bit better with "only" omitted IMO.
 * Good point, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice gallery!
 * "Ultimately some 7 million reproductions of September Morn were sold, and the "steady stream" of reproductions continued" -- reproductions/reproductions repetition; could the two sentences not be linked up to save on this? "Ultimately some 7 million reproductions of September Morn were sold, and have continued to sell at a healthy rate since"... or something like that. Not great, but I'm sure there is better that could avoid the small repetition.  Also, why is "steady stream" in quote marks with no apparant author?  If you do choose to keep this, I would lose the inverts as I don't feel they add much without an author.
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That's my lot, adopt or disregard at your will. Nice work Crisco! Cassianto talk 12:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cass! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
It's a little long and my time is short right now, so I'll do this in tranches. Looks very good.


 * Lede
 * "Its use of lighting and subject matter is typical of Chabas' work" can something brief, for example how Chabas's lighting was distinctive, be added as an illustration?
 * Will take a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * " and when the October Revolution broke out in 1917" perhaps "and in the aftermath of the October Revolution of 1917." I doubt this pic was the first thing on people's minds.
 * Good point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "positive reviews during the 1912 Salon, though reviews" reviews ... reviews. Suggest "appraisals" for the second one.
 * Agree. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Background
 * "established career" maybe "established reputation"?
 * Agree. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you comfortable with the italicization of the various French words?
 * Chevalier et al., do you mean? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That was the one I had focused on.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Chabas is cited as having studied" Is there doubt? For that is what is being expressed
 * The Met source which I cite expresses some doubt, yes. "According to catalogues of the Salon, ... Chabas was a Bouguereau and of Robert Fleury. The latest edition of Thieme-Becker, however ... withdraws the name of Bouguereau ... [and declares] that he studied under A. Maignan and Robert Fleury". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "output" For some reason, I feel this word is a bit ill-suited due to its tech aspect. Maybe "production"?
 * Fairly certain "output" is acceptable here, but changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "The lakes and rivers of France were common settings for his paintings," Yeah, we know. You told us in the previous paragraph, or at least strongly implied it
 * "attributes this setting " If we are talking about the nekkid ladies and the light and the placement by bodies of water--then that's too much to be described as "setting".
 * Gone with "Style". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nude etc
 * "French Salons" Salons properly capped?
 * Yep. Autumn Salon, Paris Salon, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I might quarrel with the implication that the nude male had disappeared from French art by the end of the 19th century. I have an official medal from the 1889 Exposition in Paris with one, not dissimilar to one created by Saint-Gaudens (who studied in France) for the 1893 Chicago fair (St-G's one didn't get past the censors, see Saint-Gaudens double eagle)
 * "had become more common than", rather than "had supplanted". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * " (important to the upper-class) " What was?
 * (a trait important to the upper-class) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Creation\
 * Can the location be established with a distance and direction from a city of note, preferably Paris?
 * A little over 500km. Added, with ref. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we know Marthe's age at the time of the painting?
 * sixteen-year-old added. Can't remember when this disappeared... coulda sworn I added it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "marred by scandal" Assumes facts not in evidence, as we lawyers say. You should at least allude to the post-release scandal in the body before this.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought "the controversy over the painting" would be enough, but I've added "twenty-four years after September Morn drew controversy in the United States," — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Paris Salon
 * "Leon Mantashev in c. 1913;" I don't think you can use "in" if you are using "c."
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole bit about who says who bought it where seems to meander a bit. I think it  could be tightened.
 * Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Chicago and NY
 * "the owner of the gallery" mean you the photography shop? Whatever that is?
 * Trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "the city's art censor Jeremiah O'Connor argued" He was a prosecution witness. Testified?
 * Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "the dealership had sold every print they had" I would say "it had" but this could be a Commonwealth English thing.
 * This is supposed to be American English, so gone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "The historian Walter M. Kendrick attributes this to his showing leniency as September Morn was a work of art" That seems a non sequitur.
 * Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The ending of this paragraph should be shortened to something pithy like "Comstock knew he had no case."
 * Indeed, that's one of the positions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "was likewise positive," cut. Her words speak for themselves
 * Cut. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Later sections
 * "in a 1915 state fair" "at" for "in".  I would say "at the 1915 Wisconsin State Fair" (assuming I have that right).  And in this paragraph, you use "references" to the painting.  "Allusions" might also work well.
 * Not stated explicitly, but clear from the context. Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Russia
 * "and after the outbreak of the October Revolution the painting was feared destroyed;[96] after" Dislike the serial "after"
 * Following, now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reception
 * "However, not having copyrighted the work, he did not receive any royalties from the marketing frenzy in the United States;" But you make reference to a copyright and magazines not acknowledging it being fined, for example Vogue.
 * A confusing point, but it appears that Chabas did not copyright it, yet Ortiz (having made the reproductions) claimed to have copyright and represent the artist. Nothing discussed in the sources, sadly, particularly whether this would have been Copyfraud. The Always in Vogue source states "As agents for the artist, Braun et Compagnie decreed a charge and mention of the copyright by any newspaper or periodical asking for reproduction rights. Failing one or both of these conditions, a penalty of five hundred to a thousand dollars would be imposed against the offender or legal action might be brought". Trim? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's about it. I would say generally excellent, but the way in which the opinions of sources (especially newspapers) are introduced is a bit awkward sometimes.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro
Lead
 * "leaning slightly forward in an ambiguous posture of either attempting to protect her modesty or huddle against the cold": Maybe "leaning slightly forward in an ambiguous posture, to either protect her modesty or huddle against the cold"? Not sure it's an improvement but fewer words usually good.
 * Not sure it reads as well, sorry — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Although several women have claimed to be the model": I don't think anyone is claiming anymore, so could "have" go?
 * (Reminded of the plot of Titanic). Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "although sources disagree as to its first owner": Maybe "although its first owner is unclear"?
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Reproductions of the painting caused controversy beginning in 1913": I generally prefer "From 1913, reproductions..." or similar, but not a big deal and really a matter of personal preference.
 * Tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "As censorship and art were debated in newspapers, and despite the threat of censure, over the next several years September Morn was reproduced in a variety of forms": Maybe move "over the next several years" to the start of the sentence? (And "next few years" sounds more natural to me, but maybe it's an engvar thing)
 * "Though the innocence of the model has been praised, the work has also been argued to be a voyeuristic and paedophilically provocative image." While I can appreciate why this is in the lead, does the weighting of these comments deserve a place in the lead?
 * An artefact of the debate on the talk page, to try and appease editors who think the article is too pro-Chabas. I think it's an important point... how's this?

Description
 * "if a bit darker": Maybe "a little darker" is more elegant.
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "This pose has been variously interpreted as the subject protecting herself from the cold,[1] covering her modesty,[4] or sponge bathing,[5] or as the artist's "fetishisation of innocence"." It is a little odd that the interpretations date from 1912, 1913, 2004 and 2011. Is there no overview, or an opinion from any time 1914-2003?
 * Oddly, none of the "overview" sources actually discuss the various interpretations. This work has been treated, mostly, as a historical artefact and not a work of art; I guess that's why. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Background
 * "First participating in the Paris Salon in 1886,[11] Chabas regularly submitted his work to the venue": I wonder is the emphasis wrong here. What about "Chabas regularly submitted his work to the Paris Salon, first participating in 1886"?
 * Much better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Chabas spent the winters working in Paris": Ignoring WP:SEASON (which is a silly idea, in my humble opinion; it is quite clear here, for example, which hemisphere we are talking about!), should this be "his winters"?
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Chabas is cited as having studied...": Cited by who? Maybe rephrase to avoid the question.
 * Various sources, as quoted above. Do you think I should say "variously" or something similar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That works nicely. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "The lakes and rivers of France were common settings for his paintings, and the interaction of light with the models and surroundings was prominent": Not quite sure that the end of that sentence is clear enough. What about "which had a prominent focus of the interaction of light with the models"?
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "J. Valmy-Baysse, in a 1910 overview of the artist, attributes this setting": Maybe "the predominance/focus/similar on this setting"
 * Now "style", so "predominance" etc don't work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "female models had supplanted male ones beginning in the early 19th century": Maybe "female models had begun to supplant male ones in the early 19th century"
 * Reworked for Wehwalt. See what you think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Other schools, such as the hostess Suzanne Delve, who later claimed to have stood for September Morn, said that models were willing to provide "service to art" by posing nude for such works.": This sentence loses me a little, but I'm quite possibly being thick.
 * Wow, how'd that pass GAC. Thanks, looks like an aborted idea which I forgot to trim. — Crisco 1492 (talk)


 * "However, by the early 1910s, the Australian art historian Fae Brauer writes, the line between art and pornography was blurred": Drowning in a sea of commas here! Any way to reword?
 * Refactored. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "who she said had known her since she was an infant": Maybe "had known her from being an infant" is more elegant. But not too sure, to be honest.
 * How's losing "she said"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That works. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Identity of model
 * What a load of fuss! I wonder what the sources for all your sources are? And I wonder if they knew of each others' existence? For most of them must be bollocks! (No action required here, forgive the rant)
 * Indeed. It's a common theme in this article. Might want to lampshade it with the Met's commentary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Down to the end of this section. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

History:
 * "not planning on selling the painting": Better as "planning not to sell"?
 * How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "According to the Met, the New York-based Philip (or Philippe) Ortiz, manager of the New York Branch of Braun and Company, had purchased the painting in late 1912": Can we lose the "had"?
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a semi-colon at the end of the above sentence, but a capital letter for "According".
 * Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "the newspaper writes that he never brought the painting back to the United States": A pedant says: A newspaper can't write anything. A tweak may be in order.
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "and on his request the case was brought to trial on March 18": "at his request" sounds better to me, but may be engvar again.
 * No, this is likely a brain fart from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Mayor Harrison later stated that he was "through" with the painting, saying "Chicago has been made the laughing stock of the whole country because of this bathing girl picture".": Is he regretting his actions or getting in a last dig?
 * Never did get into critical discourse analysis. I suspect it's a bit of both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "According to a 1973 Associated Press report September Morn was the first nude used for calendars": Do we have anything more reliable to back this up?
 * Claim is repeated in this book and this one and this one (from Joanna Pitman, a London-based journalist and critic). (And Weekly World News, but we can ignore them). Cite the Pitman book and lose the attribution? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That might work better. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Down to "reproduction" section now. The rest tomorrow. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The rest from me
 * No action required, I don't think, but the list of acts, songs, postcards, etc drags a little more than the rest of this article, the rest of which bounces along merrily.
 * Sorry. I do think that examples are important here, and since we don't have any overviews saying "x many kinds of postcards were created", we can't draw similar conclusions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "By 1933 Chabas was seeking information regarding his work's fate, which The Milwaukee Journal suggested to be "hanging in some crowded Russian room, its owner perhaps completely ignorant of its world fame".": Maybe "suggested was" would be less awkward?
 * I think that's acceptable. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "At the time several American galleries had copies which were purported to be the original."
 * Sure, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "However, the painting was safe; Mantashev had smuggled it out of the country": I think "However" is a slightly awkward start to a paragraph.
 * Refactored. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "the Met took September Morn off display and sent it to storage": To me, this would be better as "the Met removed September Morn from display and placed it in storage".
 * Sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * File:Chabas and September Morn.jpg: This is so dark, you can barely see what is happening; is it really worth including, unless we have a better quality one?
 * "Chabas was "pained and humiliated" by the controversy over September Morn,[38] though later in life his view changed.": His view changed that he had been "pained and humiliated"? (which seems odd; he either was or wasn't!) Or something else? A little vague.
 * How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The "Reception" section looks to have a nicer balance than when I first glanced at this, and now seems about right. I only wonder if there are any worthwhile comparisons artistically to the painting; if it was initially well-received, it makes me wonder about other paintings from the time have been similarly trashed in later years? I suspect this goes way beyond the articles scope, though, and you can ignore this. I'm just thinking out loud.
 * The Montreal Gazette review actually mentions several, including the works of the Barbizon school, the mother and child paintings of George de Forest Brush, and the nudes of William-Adolphe Bouguereau. I'll add a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

All done now. An interesting story, well told. Let me know when it goes to FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing! Will do! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)