Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beauty Revealed/archive1

Beauty Revealed

Featured article candidates/Beauty Revealed/archive1

Nominator(s): — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an audacious miniature by Sarah Goodridge that challenged established norms and played on contemporary tropes: a portrait of her bared breasts. She gave this miniature to the man who bested Satan himself, Daniel Webster, shortly after the death of his first wife, and it has been seen as a sort of "come hither" gift. It is now held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, having been sold by Webster's descendants more than a hundred and fifty years after she gave it to him.

I wrote this article in 2014, around the time I did September Morn, and it has been a GA since then. I've tidied up the article, expanded a bit with since-published material, and gotten everything ready for FA. As an aside, this is also the most popular article I've ever written, having accrued almost two million views in ten years. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Sarah_Goodridge_Beauty_Revealed_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Miniature_Painting,_Sarah_Goodridge_Self_Portrait.jpg, File:Daniel_Webster_(1825)_by_Sarah_Goodridge.jpg

File:Beauty_Revealed_MET_DP221518.jpg: this tagging applies to the photo only, not the artwork. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All addressed. Thanks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Generalissima

Centimetre -> Centimeter in American English (along those lines, probably should give the inch units first with the cm. in parenthesis)
- Done. That template gets tricky. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we objectively state that the breasts in question have "balance, paleness, and buoyancy" (esp. since that appears to be a direct quote)? It might be better to rephrase that to be how critics have described it.
- Reworked completely. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
who was a frequent subject and possibly a lover -> "who was her frequent subject and possible lover following the death of his wife" seems like better phrasing to me
- Not done. The sources don't indicate that, if they had an amorous relationship, it began only after the death of his first wife (Kornhauser describes Goodridge's 1827 portrait of him as a romantic presentation, referring specifically to his smoldering eyes). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"contemporary" is always a messy adjective, esp. when it begins a thought; "contemporary United States" could be read as "modern-day US" at first glance. To avoid it though, you might have to work "during the period" or similar phrasing in there somehow.
- All instances reworked. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be good to introduce what Public Domain Review in a couple words
- Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think sext goes to the article you think it does :P (it might also be good to put "proto-sext" in quotations, as thats an on-the-spot coined term)
- Oh, that was good for a laugh. Fixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be good to restate who Chris Packard is, as he's mentioned on the other sde of the article
- Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: that's all my thoughts! Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

Thanks, Generalissima. That should all be fixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me after the fixes and clarifications. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

I've done minor changes; ok I hope.
- Most everything looks good. I've reworked "made by" to "collected by", as "made" may be misinterpreted as "prepared"/"produced". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the descriptions of either the original or current framing/packaging very clear. It's now in a box, like a set of silver spoons, yes? Was there an earlier box? Where does the leather case fit in?
- The box is the leather case. The sources use the term "case" (or, in the case of Johnson, casework). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok, I think you need to expand to clarify. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know when the current box was added?
- Not in the sources, unfortunately. It was added at least as early as 1990, since Plate 19 of the Johnson source shows the same case. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes it sound like she worked the ivory herself. This doesn't seem very likely; I'd imagine smooth and flat plaques could be bought.
- The source very explicitly says that she was known to prepare the ivory herself. "She would master the art of cutting fine shavings of ivory into the desired shape for a portrait, preparing the surface for watercolor by sanding it and treating it with gum arabic." I've added "shavings" to the sentence to make it clear she wasn't working directly with the horns/tusks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I imagine my "smooth and flat plaques" = the source's "fine shavings of ivory", a phrasing which rather suggests something like wood-shavings, which wouldn't make much sense. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have replaced with "shaping and preparing ivory plaques", which appears to be a fair paraphrase of the source. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it elephant ivory?
- Not in the sources. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More later, I expect.

Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

I'm still recovering from SchroCat's Secretum (British Museum) FAC, and I doubt if I ought to be exposed to such things at my time of life. I could quibble about "following the death of his wife; she may have intended to provoke him" (who was "she"?) but in practice nobody is going to misunderstand you. I also wondered about "potentially from looking at herself in a mirror", where "possibly" might perhaps be more accurate. I boggle a bit at the suggestion that the clothing indicates a performance similar to the curtains of vaudeville, as Goodridge was decades dead before vaudeville started in the US, but my quarrel there is with the author of the source and not with Chris's citation of it, which is fine. The article is far outside my area of expertise, but all things considered I am happy to add my support for its promotion to FA. It is a good read, well and widely sourced (with 18 sources for a 1,500-word article), judiciously illustrated, and evidently comprehensive. – Tim riley talk 16:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know about that article. Will have to read it - sounds interesting. I have used "potentially" as "possible" is used in the next sentence. As with vaudeville, it does make me wonder when the proscenium curtain came into wide usage; our front curtain article is decidedly ahistorical. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

I read through the article's prose and had no concerns. The "Explanatory notes" section uses parenthetical referencing, which per WP:PAREN has been deprecated: these should be replace with inline citations. Let me know if help is needed converting these. Z1720 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720. Per WP:PAREN, This includes short citations in parentheses placed within the article text itself, such as (Smith 2010, p. 1). (emphasis in the original). The notes do not qualify as "within the article itself", and this style has been used since 2020 in Gao Qifeng and The True Record. Personally, I prefer harv in this context as it allows readers to reach the referenced material with the same number of clicks as the SFN templates used in the body of the text. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the above quote is that it emphasizes that inline citations are deprecated within the article body text, but doesn't comment on notes. I do not see text anywhere within WP:INLINE, WP:PAREN, or the original RfC that gives an exception to references within notes. The RfC says that harv templates can be used within ref tags. Z1720 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720. The footnotes are not part of the article text itself (again, emphasis in the original). As I noted previously, prior consensus at FAC has been to accept harv templates in explanatory notes. I can post to the MOS talk page for clarification if you would like, and in this instance the content of the footnotes can be reasonably worked into the body without overburdening the text or excised without detrimentally affecting the meaning. However, I am vehemently opposed to SFN in explanatory notes; it looks sloppy and is unfriendly to readers by requiring yet another click. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented out one footnote and recast another into article text. I have also posted an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources regarding the question.

Regarding the treatment of explanatory notes, I note that MOS:FNNR treats them as though they are equivalent to citations (If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated using the grouped footnotes function.). Template:Efn also treats explanatory footnotes as similar to citations, defining explanatory notes as footnotes which provide something other than, or more than, a reference to a source that supports the accompanying text (emphasis mine). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for starting that conversation at Citing sources. Since this is my only concern, and the discussion will help find a resolution, I can support this article. I am confident that, if changes/reverts are required, they will happen once the discussion reaches a conclusion. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]