Talk:Marriage License

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria.
Please feel free to leave comments.
After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes.

Marriage License has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 30, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Visual arts: Norman Rockwell GA‑class

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Norman Rockwell task force.

A fact from Marriage License appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 December 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that betrothed couple Moe and Joan were paid $50 for helping a painter with his Marriage License?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marriage License.

Wikipedia

GA Review

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marriage License/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dibsing, ping if I don't finish within a week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in excellent shape to begin with so this is mostly nitpicking.

"created for the cover of The Saturday Evening Post on June 11, 1955." - slightly ambiguous, implies it was created on June 11, 1955
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Stockbridge native needs a hyphen
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since Mahoney is a bluelink (and was an NBA player when the painting was created), could we get a touch of context for him in the lead and when he's first mentioned in the text?
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know anything about the commission for the painting? Did it accompany a specific article about marriage or was it just a random civic scene?
- Nothing I have seen comments on the commission --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence starting with "For their photo shoot" could use a bit of revising
- The couple weren't wearing the dress, so "told the couple to wear an exact yellow dress" isn't quite right
- "Exact" as an adjective for the dress feels odd. Sub "specific" instead maybe?
- Do we know why Rockwell wanted that particular dress? Did he design it himself? Did he pay for it?
  - Made some improvements based on the sources. None of them offer much more explanation --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above sentence and the next both start with "for", I wouldn't fail the GA over it but as a style nitpick it's slightly repetitive
- Added a buffer --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nitpick, but the office is filled with bookshelves, not the city hall. Reorganize slightly?
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In front of a tall desk stands" - I don't know the technical term for this but this clause feels out of order. "A young man and woman stand in front of a tall desk...etc etc" feels more natural
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, "has his arm protectively around" would feel more natural
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two sentences in succession start with "behind"
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd that the only thing given any interpretation is the American flag. Is there any other extant analysis of the painting? What about it implies mean they came in at the end of the day?
- None of the other sources discuss it --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Museum names don't get italicized
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know why Buechner picked it as one of Rockwell's best?
- No --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"painting writing" needs a comma between
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It feels odd that it's apparently been widely-praised but we only cite 3 reviews. Is that all there is, or are we being selective? If we're being selective, why these 3 in specific? Does the Fort Worth journalist focus on art? Is Chris Finch a significant pop-art historian?
- I did a refresh of this section --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"License depicting" also needs a comma between, I think
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It was released" feels like an odd way to describe a Mad parody, especially one that was originally created in 2004. "It was re-posted" perhaps
- Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's it. Mostly nitpicking as I said. No rush on responses. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Can you take another look? -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All looking sharp! Easy pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Francis Mahoney was one of Norman Rockwell's models for Marriage License? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/111775070/marriage-license/
- ALT1: ... that Thomas Buechner considers Marriage License to be one of Norman Rockwell's two best paintings?
- ALT2: ... that MAD released a parody of Marriage License in 2004 depicting a gay couple applying for a marriage license?
- ALT3: ... that the clerk in Marriage License was originally supposed to be leaning towards the couple instead of looking uninterested?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bejeweled (song)

Created by Guerillero (talk). Self-nominated at 14:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Since this can't run with a picture anyway, how about using a really quirky hook to draw readers' attentions? I suggest some possible variations:

ALT4 ... that Mo and Joan were paid $50 for their efforts to help produce a Marriage License?
ALT5 ... that betrothed couple Mo and Joan were paid $50 for helping a painter with his Marriage License?
ALT6 ... that Mo and Joan received an oil sketch of Marriage License for their wedding?

I'll admit the other hooks are fine as well, but more "normal". Unsure if the "a" has to be dropped in ALT 4 & 6, some native speaker will know. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LordPeterII: I did some light copyedits. I dropped the "a" in 6 and corrected the amount that the couple was paid for their efforts. 4 is the funniest. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} Since prior review seems to have petered out, here is a review. See my comments. The short version is this: if you want to go with ALT0, I think you're all ready to go, because that has a citation. If you want the other ALTs in the running, as I understand things they should have citations too; is that right?

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:

QPQ:
Overall: It is in its current state new enough, as it became a Good Article within 10 days of its nomination. It's long enough at 4,816 characters. The page is well-sourced, and I assume good faith for those sources not available online or not clippable. (because the article spans multiple pages, or is too large, etc.) The article reads neutrally, and Earwig detects no probable plagiarism. As for hooks, ALT0 is sourced but none of the others are. I figure that's fine if you decide to just put forward ALT0, but do you want the others in the running? I think ALT0–ALT3 are pretty interesting. I confess I don't get the punchline of ALT4 and ALT6, but ALT5 made me chuckle.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by P-Makoto (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@P-Makoto: your ping never went through. Alts 0-3 are sourced in the article. Providing a second copy here is not needed. I think alt 5 is sourced as well. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the issue with the ping and for how this has delayed your nomination. Not sure what went wrong. The QPQ is complete, and if the sources are not an issue then the nomination is

approved. P-Makoto (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

https://archive.org/details/legacyofnormanro0000sond_k7v5/page/104/mode/2up?q=%22marriage+license%22&view=theater

https://valley.newhavenindependent.org/article/Norman_Rockwell_Painting_Dedicated_To_Barbara_Moores_Memory/

https://www.timeshudsonvalley.com/stories/rockwell-painting-hangs-in-town-hall,36390

https://archive.org/details/normanrockwellsp0000meye/page/196/mode/2up?q=%22marriage+license%22

https://archive.org/details/americanmirrorli0000solo_s7q5/page/304/mode/2up?q=%22marriage+license%22

https://archive.org/details/alwayslookingess0000updi/page/22/mode/2up?q=%22marriage+license%22+%22norman+rockwell%22

https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780838630846/page/136/mode/2up?q=%22marriage+license%22

-- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Recommend exporting the image to commons and using the crop tool to place an image of the bored man (by far the most interesting thing about the work) in the desc section. As a humorous aside: what he probably told them[1]. Ceoil (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]