Wikipedia:Peer review/Vincent van Gogh/archive3

Vincent van Gogh
This article is the culmination of input by dozens and dozens of knowledgeable editors over the years, many of whom are now sadly retired, and has been the focus of periods of intense work at a few stages of development. The article is usually either 1 or 2 on the list of most viewed visual arts pages, pulling in about 8500 hits/day. The eventual aim here is FAC, with Modernist and Victoriaearle as co-leads. Am currently working towards standardising refs formats, but asking now for feedback on other criteria.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Iridescent
A monumental effort, and these are all minor nitpicks rather than criticisms. Per my usual practice on PRs, I'm not reading the talkpage or anyone else's comments, in order to come at it with an open mind, so apologies for any duplication

Lead

 * I'd suggest (emphasise suggest) not using File:Vincent Willem van Gogh 106.jpg as the lead image. Because of the hat, the bandage, the lack of his trademark beard and the heavily buttoned coat, this could be a picture of anyone, and the expression is fairly dull; unless you're using Self Portrait with Bandaged Ear specifically to show the bandaged ear, I'd suggest that his later Paris self-portraits like File:Self-Portrait9 Van Gogh.jpg or File:Vincent van Gogh - Self-portrait with grey felt hat - Google Art Project.jpg are both more representative of his portrait style, and give a better idea of what he looked like.
 * Done...Modernist (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * He was largely ignored by critics by the time of his early death in 1890 implies that he'd previously attracted notice but had fallen out of fashion. Would "He was largely ignored by critics until after his death" work better?
 * Done...Modernist (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Early life

 * Although the implication is there in "child of a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church", at no point is it explicitly specified what his religion was (other than "Protestant"), which (given that the man was a missionary) is fairly important.
 * I'd change "87 Hackford Road, Brixton" to "87 Hackford Road, Oval". "Brixton" is correct in the context of the time when Brixton was still a country town with Kennington as a suburb, but will be confusing to modern readers as it's not in the area now called Brixton. The place was already called "Oval" then, so it's not an anachronism.
 * Changed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Contradicting myself, I've changed it to Stockwell, which is equally accurate and isn't as jarring for those who are only aware that Oval is a sports ground and aren't aware that it's also the name of a broader area. We have the same problem with Old Trafford. &#8209; Iridescent 00:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Vincent grew further isolated and fervent about religion; his father and uncle arranged for his transfer to Paris where he grew resentful at how art was treated as a commodity—the semicolon implies that the two are linked, but it isn't clear how. Did his family think he'd socialise more easily in Paris?
 * Is there any particular significance to taking the train to Richmond and the remainder of the journey [to Isleworth] on foot? Richmond station to Old Isleworth using only those roads and bridges which existed in 1876 is a 40 minute walk, hardly the Mormon Trail.
 * Seems the distance was overstated by the source. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Emerging artist

 * Van Gogh devoted himself to drawing and gave money to boys to bring him birds' nests for subject matter for paintings—it could probably do with an illustration of one here, probably File:Van Gogh - Stillleben mit fünf Vogelnestern.jpeg, since his birds nest series are so different to his other works.
 * "Still-life" is one of those phrases which tends to summon the Dash Police; expect assorted busybodies to insist it be changed to "still life" throughout.
 * For the first time there was interest from Paris in his work is unclear; this could mean anything from a single fan letter, to being garlanded with flowers at the Salon.
 * he shared Theo's Rue Laval apartment on Montmartre—was he actually on Montmartre itself, or just in the broader Montmartre neighbourhood?
 * Van Gogh seemingly had problems acknowledging developments in how artists view and paint their subject matter—what does this mean? Did VVG literally not admit that there were changing trends, or did he just not agree with the way Impressionism was going?
 * Discussions on art, artists, and their social situations that started during this exhibition continued and expanded to include visitors to the show, like Pissarro and his son Lucien, Signac, and Seurat—does this mean Pissarro et al were taking part in the discussion, or that they were the subject of the discussion?

Artistic breakthrough and final years

 * He arrived on 21 February 1888, and took room at the Hôtel-Restaurant Carrel, which he had expected to look like a Hokusai (1760–1849) or Utamaro's (1753–1806) print. This can't really go in without an explanatory footnote—why on earth did he expect a pub in Provence to look like 18th-century Japan?
 * [VVG] found the rate of 5 francs a week excessive. He argued over the price, brought it to a local arbitrator, and was awarded a twelve franc reduction on the bill.—I take it that was twelve francs off the bill for the year, not that he had a weekly bill of minus seven? I question whether—given that so much has had to be trimmed to keep this to a manageable length—his arguing over a bill is really of much significance, unless it's purely to indicate how precarious his finances were.
 * "Sectioned" in this context is jarring to me, and will probably make no sense to readers outside the UK and Ireland; the term comes from the legal obligation in those countries to tell the patient under which section of the Mental Health Act they're being detained (the US equivalent would be "committed"). "Within a few days it was decided to keep him in the hospital against his will" would have the same meaning and be a lot clearer to readers.
 * The Starry Night, his best-known painting is questionable, unless you have a cast-iron source. I'd be prepared to bet that if I stopped people in the street and asked them to name a Van Gogh painting, The Starry Night wouldn't even be in the top five.
 * Done...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Work

 * Art historian Albert Boime believes that Van Gogh – even in seemingly fantastical compositions like Starry Night – based his work in reality.[158] The White House at Night, shows a house at twilight with a prominent star surrounded by a yellow halo in the sky. Astronomers at Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos calculated that the star is Venus, which was bright in the evening sky in June 1890 when Van Gogh is believed to have painted the picture. This entire paragraph could be deleted and nothing of value would be lost; by this point, we've had about 10,000 words emphasising that VVG preferred to work from nature and found painting from memory or imagination uncomfortable. I really doubt anyone needs the help of a whole team of astronomers to know that Venus is the brightest object in the night sky other than the moon.
 * Deleted all this. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * His gaze is seldom directed at the viewer is accompanied by three example self-portraits, in all three of which he's looking directly at the viewer.
 * Gone. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Self-portrait Without Beard, from late September 1889, is one of the most expensive paintings of all time is questionable—assuming the linked List of most expensive paintings is correct, it's number 42 on the list and isn't even the most expensive Van Gogh.
 * Clarified that the claim held "at that time". Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

 * Malleus will likely choke on his Coco Pops to see me suggest this, but this is one of the rare topics where an "in popular culture" section is probably warranted, either as a paragraph here or as a very prominently linked and expanded Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh. Van Gogh is one of those figures where for most people (outside the Netherlands, at least) virtually the whole public perception of him is based on his depiction in fiction, ranging from Lust for Life to Dreams to Leonard Nimoy to Doctor Who. I'd be prepared to bet a substantial sum that if you asked people to give a fact about him, most would say "he's the guy who cut his ear off to impress a prostitute" or "he's the guy who invented modern art", and the story of how these misconceptions became so widespread is an important aspect of his story. ("In popular culture" sections also make excellent heatsinks to which the "he was channeling the space aliens" cranks can be pointed to stop them messing up the main article.) &#8209; Iridescent 12:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Inclined to agree, maybe reluctantly. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all of these, working through. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Driveby comments from Curly Turkey

 * Don't the MoS people have some "thing" about images whose subjects look out from the page? In that case, wouldn't it be better to have one of the leftward-facing self-portraits for the Infobox? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They do, but for pictures showing artists at work it's slightly different, since their "natural" orientation is gazing outwards at whatever they're painting/photographing. &#8209; Iridescent 18:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also there is a revolving policy, long as the request isn't FP driven. Ceoil (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The only substantial exhibitions held during his lifetime were showcases in Paris and Brussels.: I don't think this sentence is expressing what was intended—I think most people would assume "showcases in Paris and Brussels" was quite the achievement. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see this was done already. Ceoil (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd the lead opening paragraph would give some sort of description of the characteristics for which his works are known, rather than leaving it virtually to the end of the lead, where it seems to be mentioned almost in passing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ok; now "highly expressive use of vivid colours, broad oil brushstrokes and emotive subject matter". Which is broad enough for a lead without getting into it, though it could be better. Ceoil (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Names were often reused in this way.: In the era? In the Netherlands? the locality? the family? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the family, but the claim was redundant given before and after sentences, so removed. Ceoil (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

 * He grew in early adulthood into thoughtful intellectual - grammar
 * He spent many of his 20s - sounds like 'e's spending money. (--> "much")
 * These have included schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, syphilis, poisoning from swallowed paints, temporal lobe epilepsy, and acute intermittent porphyria. Any of these could have been the culprit, and could have been aggravated by malnutrition, overwork, insomnia, and consumption of alcohol, especially absinthe. - needs a ref at the end of it
 * All sorted, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
First few comments, after initial read-through for typos etc. More to come later. I'll read the text thoroughly next and report back here with any comments.  Tim riley  talk    12:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC) I'll leave comment on the lead till last. My first thought was surprise at finding the biography doesn't begin with the subject's birth but with a note on his letters. Important source though the letters clearly are, I wonder if readers looking Van Gogh up in an encyclopaedia will expect – or want – to encounter this preliminary section before getting to the story of his life. Is there some reason I've missed why the Letters section isn't further down, perhaps between the Life and Art sections? More soonest.  Tim riley  talk    13:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC) What a desperately sad story! You tell it outstandingly well. I'll add comments on the Work section a.s.a.p.  Tim riley  talk    09:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Arlésienne" – lacks its acute accent in two incidences, one in the main text (in a quote, but I don't imagine Van G would have omitted it) and one in a picture caption
 * "Décoration" – I am probably showing my ignorance of the visual arts, but (i) why do we give this French form of the word even in an otherwise translated title ("The Décoration for the Yellow House")? (ii) why is it sometimes capitalised in the article and sometimes not? and (iii) why is it sometimes singular and sometimes plural?
 * "prisoner in the center of the painting – American spelling of center in otherwise BrE article
 * Footnote 17: should "Black & White" be capitalised? Should we have the ampersand here? The Graphic and Illustrated London News have articles and could be linked; favorites is spelled à l'américaine here.
 * First lot
 * Early years
 * Christian denominations: if linking Dutch Reformed Church I'd link Catholic too.
 * We have a Vincent overload in the opening para, which could be lightened slightly by not telling us twice that grandfather was named Vincent. You could move the old boy's dates back to the previous sentence and blitz the Vincent before where the dates now are.
 * "His brother Theo" – The last person mentioned, to whom "his" therefore refers, was great-great uncle Vincent.
 * Second para: we switch to and fro between "Van Gogh" and "Vincent" for no clear reason.
 * "he grew resentful at how art was treated as a commodity, a fact he believed was apparent to customers" – I'm unclear whether it was his resentment or the commodification that was apparent to customers
 * "entrance exam" – perhaps it's me being fuddy-duddy, but "exam" seems a bit too colloquial for an encyclopaedia article. I'd write "examination" in full.
 * Etten, Drenthe and The Hague
 * "cousin-in-law" – that's a new one on me, but it's in the OED with citations to exactly the appropriate period, so fair enough, and the meaning isn't hard to see.
 * "In June he suffered a bout of gonorrhoea and spent three weeks in hospital, then began to paint in oil" – there's something a bit odd about this sentence, as though the last part was in some way related to the earlier bit. I think I'd split it, starting a new sentence with something like "He began to paint in oils for the first time in the weeks after leaving hospital" or whatever the sources justify.
 * I don't know enough about VVG to say for sure, but I can easily believe that there was a causal relationship (that is, the hospital stay gave him time to think about what he wanted to do in future, or a brush with illness made him contemplate his own mortality and decide to stop faffing about with watercolours). &#8209; Iridescent 12:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps lack of money..." – this is all speculative, and we need to know whose speculation it is.
 * Second lot: to end of Life section.
 * Nuenen and Antwerp
 * There has grown a superstition, widely held among Wikipedia editors, that in a biography the first mention of the subject in every paragraph must be by his or her name rather than by a pronoun. I don't know where this is ordained in the MoS, if indeed it is ordained. It's a foolish convention, and one you won't find followed in any other major work of reference known to me, but you can be sure that at FAC someone will object to the second and third paragraphs of this section, where Van G is "he" at first mention (and indeed in the third para he is "he" throughout). There are other examples later, such as the last para of Paris (1886–88).
 * "several years work" – grammatically needs a genitive form: either "several years' work" or "several years of work"
 * "forbade parishioners from modelling" – does one forbid from? "Forbid to", is the usual form in the examples in the OED.
 * Paris (1886– 88)
 * "they had no need to write letters to communicate..." with each other, presumably. They must have written letters to communicate with other people.
 * "After seeing Adolphe Joseph Thomas Monticelli" – after seeing his paintings, rather than the man, perhaps?
 * Third paragraph – it's a long way from ref 66 to ref 67. Does the latter justify all the intervening statements?
 * "visit to Seurat in his atelier (studio)." – is there any advantage to the reader in having the French term as well as the English translation?
 * Move to Arles
 * "His portrayals of the Arles landscape" – this pronoun really does need to be a noun. The "he" here isn't obviously related to anyone in particular.
 * "Gauguin, after much pleading" – by whom was the pleading done?
 * December 1888
 * "named Rachel at brothel" – there seems to be a word or more missing here
 * Saint-Rémy (May 1889 – May 1890)
 * "the Reverend Salles" – you can't in good English usage say "the Reverend Surname": it must be "the Reverend Forename Surname", and then simply "Mr Surname" or "Surname". (It is otherwise in American usage, I believe.) You could call the man "the Reverend Frédéric Salles" – but is "Reverend" a term used by Protestant clergymen in France? Perhaps safest just to write "his carer, Frédéric Salles, a Protestant clergyman".
 * "the noted Van Gogh scholar Jan Hulsker" – probably better to lose the peacock "noted" here.
 * "and he later wrote Theo" – "to" missing
 * "Toulouse-Lautrec demanded satisfaction..." – this interesting statement clamours to be followed up or otherwise closed. Did a duel take place?
 * "Monet said that his work" – your normal practice has been to give artists their forenames at first mention, and this is the first time we've met Monet.
 * "his nephew Vincent Willem" – Monet's nephew, going by the last mention of anyone's name.
 * Thank you Tim. I have met all your demands, except for the mention of Toulouse-Lautrec's satisfaction, and interesting statement indeed. Will reread the sources. Ceoil (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Despite my doubts about the Works section I enjoyed the article enormously, and can see that it is of very high quality. Please ping me when you take it to FAC.  Tim riley  talk    14:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Last lot from Tim
 * Works
 * I was taken aback by the Works section, which is not what I expected. I thought it would consist of an analytical description of Van Gogh's oeuvre, perhaps divided into sections by period or genre. What we have instead is a (very readable and enjoyable) history of the works. As I have already admitted, I am pretty much an ignoramus about the visual arts, and you may want to bear that in mind when considering my criticism here, viz that I didn't finish reading the section knowing anything much about the artist's technique and aesthetic development, or the differences between his various periods. I was expecting, and could have done with, much more on the lines of this fleeting piece of description: "Road with Cypress and Star (1890) is as compositionally unreal and artificial as The Starry Night. It represents an exalted experience of reality, what both Van Gogh and Gauguin referred to as an 'abstraction'." Mention in the Legacy section of the influence of Van Gogh's "broad, gestural brush strokes" and his tapping into the subconscious are very helpful and I'd like to see them developed substantially in the works section.
 * Lead
 * "he is recognisable both in the modern public imagination by his first name, as the quintessential misunderstood genius" – two points here. First, there's nothing about this in the main text, and (WP:LEAD) there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the body of the article. Secondly, I'm not sure I believe the statement. Do people really refer to Van Gogh as just "Vincent" in the same sort of way they do with Rembrandt and Leonardo? What's the evidence for the statement?

Comment from Noswall59
Is Grandfather Vincent on the maternal or paternal side (I assume the latter, but it is not made clear in the article)? —Noswall59 (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC).