Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vincent van Gogh/archive2

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2016 [1].

Vincent van Gogh[edit]

Nominator(s): Modernist, Ceoil, Victoriaearle, John.

Biography of a major early modernist, perhaps the quintessential tortured artist, who consistently ranks nr 1 on the most visited visual arts pages. The first, 2007, nom was probably too soon. There was a highly informative PR since, with nuanced critical input from Iridescent, John and Tim Reily among others, which we feel we have now met, having spent several years on this. Hopefully it is not too fawning or salacious, though there was a lot of room for that. Several now retired and much missed editors were major contributors, esp JNW and others. Feedback, as always, more than welcome. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Well done for bringing this important article here.

~~self portrait or self-portrait?~~
~~still life or still-life?~~

Good catch - we're using still life and self-portrait...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Sources:

~~154 Dorn, Schröder & Sillevis (1996)~~
~~158, 164 Sund (1988)~~
~~212 Welsh-Ovcharov (1998)~~

In Sources but not cited:

~~Cohen, Ben (2003)~~
~~Kleiner, Carolyn (24 July 2000)~~

Aa77zz (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aa77zz thanks for taking a look. The sources should be fixed now. Victoria (tk) 16:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In February 1890, following the birth of his nephew, he wrote that the new addition to the famil "started right away to make a picture for him, to hang in their bedroom, branches of white almond blossom against a blue sky."[139]?" famil -> family, but this is still difficult to follow. Aa77zz (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~"The family took walks together, and gardened in her large flower garden." Who is "her" in this sentence?~~ Aa77zz (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both fixed...Modernist (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Lovely article, and many thanks for your combined efforts on it. I look forward to giving a full prose review; in the meantime, just a few points:

~~The "with" in the third line of the lead is redundant~~

"While there Theo wrote to him that he would no longer be able to support him financially. He walked into a wheat field..." etc. Needs some attention (some confusion in the personal pronouns). Perhaps: "While he was there, Theo wrote that he could no longer support him financially. Van Gogh walked into a wheat field...".

~~Why the American date form "July 27, 1890"? Most dates in the article seem to follow the British format.~~
The "Letters" section seems very oddly placed in the article. Is there a particular rationale for this decidedly non-standard format?

More will follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, before we start tackling your points (and thanks for reviewing!): Regarding the letters - they are very important on a number of levels. First, they reflect the degree of Van Gogh's introspection, self-criticism, and self-doubt. Their existence provides a glimpse of his thought processes about almost everything, his art, his search for a vocation, his illness, etc. Beyond that, he was almost as prolific a letter-writer as a painter, and it's been suggested (by Arnold Pomerans, editor/translater to print of The Letters of Vincent Van Gogh (which I have a copy of)), that they can be considered literature - which is spun out in the article about the letters. All of the sources are littered with quotes from the letters, and that they have been made available online gives anyone access to them. When I first came to the article, five years ago, I didn't know about the letters but quickly came to appreciate their importance. Given the length of the article and that not everyone will scroll to the bottom, and given that Van Gogh is associated with his paintings and his ear, I think it's ok to lead with the letters. This, of course, is subject to consensus and if the reviewers feel we should move them down, we can. My only quibble would be that the bottom of the article then gets to be too heavy in terms of the letters, because of their importance in driving his posthumous fame. Hope this helps. I won't get the rest until a bit later, but wanted to address this now. Victoria (tk) 17:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents regarding the letters - without them we all would know very little if anything regarding Vincent van Gogh; he and his work might have been lost to history. We begin with the letters because it's through the letters that his career and life work came into the public purvey...Modernist (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully accept the importance of the letters, while querying the placement of this section in the article. I appreciate your reasoning, but nevertheless have my doubts as to whether this layout works best. ~~Another problem you may wish to consider is that given the importance of these letters to Van Gogh's work and principles, they should be at least mentioned in the lead.~~ Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think your idea is a good one; and I've added a mention of his letters to the lead, thanks...Modernist (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good suggestion. I've spent a little time in preview mode tinkering around, but I'm not entirely satisfied with any of the results. Do you mind if we put the issue of the letters aside for the moment? In the meantime, the other points have been addressed. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 11:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm just starting a general prose review and will post back here in a couple of days. I'll do any simple and uncontroversial fixes on the way. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very kind of you. I notice the issue with Vincent vs. Van Gogh: I think that happened recently when some of my sandbox edits were copied over and I'd missed discussions during the winter (while I was gone) about how to standardize. Either Modernist or Ceoil will know which I should have been using. Victoria (tk) 21:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initially we used Vincent only when discussing both Vincent and Theo; otherwise we use Van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Modernist. I thought that's how we were doing it. I suppose that was my fault; will change them. Victoria (tk) 00:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my detailed prose comments for the first few sections:

Letters

~~"Problems remain, mainly with those from Arles" – why do the Arles letters present particular problems, and what sort of problems are these?~~

"The period when he lived in Paris is the most difficult to analyse because the brothers lived together and had no need to correspond." Consider moving this sentence up to follow "...between 1872 and 1890", and rephrase slightly: "The period of Vincent's life when he lived in Paris..." etc

"Art historian and editor of the letters Arnold Pomerans..." British English gives a "the" to the false title, thus: "The art historian and editor of the letters, Arnold Pomerans, ..." etc. I think a slight rearrangement, to "The art historian Arnold Pomerans, who edited the letters, ..." might work better.

Early years

~~"His father, Theodorus, was a clergyman..." – unnecessary, as in the previous line you've described Theodorus as "a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church".~~

Does a clergyman father and mother from the petite bourgeoisie really justify what you say in the lead, that Vincent was born into "an upper-middle-class family"?

"rigid and religious" – is "rigid" the right word? Is it necessary, since you go on to mention her adherence to "Victorian respectability" (is "Victorian" apt, in a Dutch family context?)

"Vincent was a common name in the family: his grandfather, Vincent (1789–1874), received a degree in theology at the University of Leiden in 1811, and had six sons, three of whom became art dealers". When a colon divides a sentence it is necessary that the second part is dependent on the first. That is not the case here. Apart from which, the second part itself is a hotch-potch of unrelated info., and is confusingly followed by "His brother Theo..." without clarifying who "his" refers to. I'd reconsider the organisation of this entire paragraph, to give it a clearer chronology; at the moment it moves from grandfather to parents, back to grandfather and then to siblings. I've redrawn the last two sentences.

"gardened in Anna's large flower garden" – "worked in" would avoid repetition

"Naifeh and Smith" need to be explained, e.g. "In their biography, Naifeh and Smith describe him..."

What period is covered by "these years", when the relationship with Theo was "strained"?

"Vincent's profound unhappiness seems to have overshadowed the lessons and had little effect." Do you mean "which had little effect"?

"Just after Christmas in 1871 his parents moved from Zundert to Helvoirt". This sentence seems out of place here, where you are discussing Vincent's training. I'd find another place for it.

~~What is the "commodification" of art?~~
"Vincent prepared for the entrance examination..." – entrance to where?
"lodged with a miner until October" – give the year.

Both these last two are done (not by me). Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etten, Drenthe and The Hague

~~"had a nice studio" – is "nice" the best adjective we can use?~~

"a strongly worded letter" – better if you gave a brief indication of its contents

"persistence is disgusting" – as this is a quote, it should be specifically cited.

"That Christmas he refused to attend church, quarreling with his father as a result, and left the same day for The Hague". "Left the same day", but in the next sentence he "relocated to The Hague in January 1882", which is some time after Christmas.

~~"Mauve appears to have suddenly gone cold towards Van Gogh, and stopped replying to his letters". When did this state of affairs arise?~~
"Perhaps lack of money pushed Sien back into prostitution"; speculation such as this needs to be specifically attributed, rather than just included in the citation
~~I'd cut out much of the last paragraph – anecdotal, too much of a sentimental/magaziney feeling, and as you indicate, unverifiable. Not the stuff of an encyclopaedia article.~~
Yes. Have quote the "direct" quote. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuenen and Antwerp

"There was interest from collectors in Paris". This would I think be better as "Collectors in Paris began to show an interest in Van Gogh's work". You should also briefly mention what activated this interest. Was it Theo?

Yes, it was Theo. Will re-read, but my sense is "collectors" is probably the wrong word to be using at this early stage in his career. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Give a date (or approx) for the Cavenaile treatment.~~

Before I continue, can I suggest that one of the four nominators takes it upon her/himself to deal with a few of the more repetitious prose lapses? The "Van Gogh v. Vincent" issue seems to be in hand, but there are other problems. In particular there is the frequent use of the pronoun "he" or "his" at the beginnings of paragraphs; I've amended some, but they go on through the article. There is also some lack of clarity in dates – use of "that year" or "that August" doesn't always make clear where we are. If someone would make a general sweep and pick up these glitches, it would make my reviewing task quicker and easier.

A separate issue is that the link in ref 88 no longer works. This source (the National Gallery) is the only citation in this paragraph; did it cover all the content in the paragraph – the Theo-Vincent tensions, the move to Asnières, the acquaintenace with Signac, the adoption of pointillism?

I don't want to finish on a negative note so I'll repeat that I find the article fascinating and beautifully illustrated, just in need of further polishing. Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these Brianboulton. Everything up to "Mauve appears to have suddenly gone cold..." is from work I recently added and I think, with tweaking and trimming and clarifying, I've addressed all the issues to that point. I have made a preliminary swing through to replace pronouns with Van Gogh's name and will take another look later. Haven't gotten to the dates yet. Victoria (tk) 16:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, adding to my reply above: the section that formerly had footnote 88 with the National Gallery has been fixed and reliable sources in place. Victoria (tk) 00:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have made furhter attemps re varying para openings. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No time tonight but a little note for Victoriaearle or whomever: I fixed the broken link which Brian referred to as note 88 (at this moment it's note 86), but that link to a definition shouldn't even be in the citations at all. It should be a footnote "See definition at blah blah blah". Moving that into footnotes leaves that entire paragraph unreferenced,as Brian's comments also suggest. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just left an inline reminder. I have to go out soon but will read about that section when I return. I've also had to try to retrieve Naifeh & Smith (for better or worse, good with dates etc.) from interlibrary loan, but will take a few days to arrive. Victoria (tk) 16:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi, when you get a chance can you look at ref 211 "Van Gogh, 2010 & loc (Memoirs of V.W. Van Gogh)." Cannot get rif of the bare url. 20:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Responses and comments noted. In view of some of these comments, and those of other reviewers, but most particularly because of the current levels of edit activity on the article (300+ edits in the past 48 hours), I'm going to pause my review for the next three days or so, to allow things to settle down. Keep tweaking, see you anon. Watch out for the BBC2 documentary "The mystery of Van Gogh's ear", coming soon. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brian. I'm working my way through and have all your comments (to date) resolved but not yet in the article. It will take a couple of days to move it all from the sandbox to article space. Interesting about the BBC documentary. Victoria (tk) 15:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary is on BBC2, on Saturday 6 August, for those who can get BBC TV. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I imagine there will even more activity on the page afterwards. Update: I've worked my way through Cavenaile treatment, from your comments above. Victoria (tk) 16:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I paused my review five days ago, in the hope that the level of editing on the article might stabilise, but since then there have been more than 600 edits to it. Also, I note that the article's wordcount has risen by more than 1,000 during this time, indicating that these recent revisions aren't all just tweaks and twiddles to the prose. The article has changed rather significantly, and judging from the edit history, the change seems to be a continuing process. There was much to admire about the article in the form in which it was brought to FAC, and I am sure there is a potential FA here, but trying to review in such a fluid situation is a bit like trying to paint on water. I don't think you're necessarily being helped by having half a dozen reviewers active at the same time, so I'm going to continue my pause so that other reviewers can complete their comments, and the article can achieve genuine stablity. Please ping when appropriate. (I'll definitely watch the doc, which as Victoria says might itself generate a new spike of activity). Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton, I just noticed this (I think I was commenting in another section when you posted). Thank you for letting us know. In all fairness, it's difficult to respond to the reviewers' requests without adding to the wordcount, but I suppose I understand your frustration (and fwiw, as a nominator, I'm slightly frustrated too.) Articles such as these by their very nature have stability issues, as Iridescent notes, and by their nature will attract a lot of reviewers. My experience with a similar article with a similar number of daily page views that I managed to get through FAC as my first FA (inexperienced as I was and still am) is that the FA adds greatly to its stability and being able to curate. In the meantime, there's not really a lot we can do about others jumping in, and we do need to respond to comments. The most number of words have been added to the "Style" subsections in response to the image formatting issue, which on a visual arts article isn't a small issue and we really have to get it right - even if that means some sections will have to be bulked up to support the requested galleries. Anyway, sorry, this got long. Will ping in case you're still interested. But from your comments, it seems that you're on the verge of opposing. Victoria (tk) 22:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still interested, I'm not on the verge of opposing, and I do appreciate the difficulties you have with so many people wanting to have their say here. All I'm saying is that I'll step back for a while, until the reviewing scrum dies down. This is intended to be helpful rather than censorious. I'll continue to watch the review meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the understanding that the article is more stable now, I'm resuming my review. I've struck all the resolved points from my earlier review, leaving just a few issues to be addressed or answered – see above. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, thank you for taking to time to check and strike - very useful. I see that a few were missed and a few were lost in the shuffle, but I believe the points above you've not struck are now taken care of in these edits: entrance to study theology; date supplied for lodging with miner; date supplied for "that March"; speculation about Sien's return to prostitution attributed here. I've looked at the batch below and wasn't as involved in those sections so handing off the baton to one of the other nominators and will pick it up again when necessary. On a sidenote: do you think we should be moving resolved comments to the talkpage? Thanks again, Victoria (tk) 00:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, my apologies but I have undone one of your changes: we do not in my opinion need to explain that the entrance exam was to study theology as it is clear from the previous sentence. I don't think we need to repeat that in consecutive sentences. --John (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right and no prob. I missed it a week ago and again last night, and I've made similar mistakes with the dates. Except for the note added below re his illness, I won't continue to work on the FAC, and in fact might not get to that either. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 21:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, John, I have to disagree. "Entrance exams" implies entrance to an institution, not to an area of study. Thus I would talk about my "Oxford entrance exams", not my "History entrance exams". Why not name the institution here? after all, you do mention the Protestant missionary school where Vincent studied later in the year. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, in the US it always applies to an area of study/discipline, not to the institution. So I never would have understood what was being asked for there. Victoria (tk) 15:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion Brian and I have implemented it. --John (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and here we go again. I have done down to the end of the "Life" sections – fewer comments reflecting the benefits of the substantial rewrites of the past few days. There are also various copyedits where I've corrected or revised minor issues.

- Hello again Brian, nice to see you. I will comment in-line, if that's ok.

Paris (1886–88)

Is the correct expression "with" pastel" or "in pastel"?
- Changed to "in".
Querying capitalisation of Pointillism and Neo-Impresssionism
- I think this is correct, but I would be open to persuasion.
Why italicise "Grand-Bouillon Restaurant du Chalet"?
- Agree, de-italicised.

Arles (1888–89)

"Arles" should be wikilinked at first mention after the lead – which I think is actually in the "Letters" section
- Agree, done.
"in an exchange for works with Paul Gauguin, Émile Bernard, Charles Laval" should I think be "exchanges" rather than "an exchange"
- Changed to "an exchange of works"
"That March..." – give year
- Not done, see below.
" all intended for the décoration for the Yellow House" reads rather clumsily. I think I'd reword: "all intended as decoration for the Yellow House (no need for the French form in the pipe)
- Agree, done.
"that June" – when?
- Changed to "June"; should be clear we are talking about 1888.

Gauguin's visit (1888)

" Boch's sister Anna (1848–1936), also an artist, purchased The Red Vineyard in 1890.": This sentence interferes with the chronology and would be better as a footnote, especially as this is the first mention of The Red Vineyard, the painting of which is mentioned
- Put into footnote
"...while Van Gogh painted pictures from memory (deferring to Gauguin's ideas) and his The Red Vineyard." Confusing and somewhat inelegant wording which I'm sure could be rephrased. The final "and his The Red Vineyard" reads most awkwardly. What "ideas" of Gauguin's was Van Gogh deferring to?
- Changed to "Van Gogh painted pictures from memory, following Gauguin's suggestion."

December 1888

A "contretemps" by definition is a minor disagreement, so is it the right word here, bearing in mind Gauguin's version with open razors being wielded, etc.?
- Changed to "argument"
I note what you say about the differences in view concerning how much of the ear was cut off. All I can say is that the TV documentary to which I've referred (broadcast on 6 August) produced specific evidence that the almost whole ear, with the exception of the lobe, was severed. Whether this evidence is otherwise available I'm not sure, or whether you need to take account of it.
- Open to further discussion on this. Not yet finished watching the documentary.
  - I think it covers the various scenarios. We mention Dr Rey's sketch in the note; we cite the new book; we mention the ear was delivered to the hospital (had to be a substantial piece of flesh if not the entire ear), but like John, am open to discussion. Haven't seen the documentary. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"it is plain that he had suffered an acute psychotic episode"; as it stands, "it is plain that" reads as editorial opinion and breaches WP:EDITORIAL. You need either to attribute the opinion, or reword
- Changed to "suggesting that he had suffered"
"Theo had proposed marriage to his old friend Andries Bonger's sister Johanna on 24 December, the day after Vincent's self-mutilation." Strange insertion, doubtful relevancy. Suggest omit.
- Moved to footnote
  - Hi John, I would have done that too, but after today's reading when I realized that Theo received news of the self-mutilation the day he proposed, he then hopped a night train to Provence, spent Christmas day there, and then back to Paris the next night to Johanna, I decided to take it out of the note, because it seems important. I'm ok if you disagree and readjust. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" Paul Signac spent time with him in the hospital, and Van Gogh was allowed home in his company. In April, he moved into rooms owned by Dr Rey after floods damaged paintings in his own home." Where was VG's "home" to which he was allowed to return, after the Yellow House had been closed by the police?
- I presume Signac's is intended?

- If so, the text needs considerable clarification. Something like: "Paul Signac spent time with him in the hospital, and was allowed to take him home. In April, Van Gogh moved into rooms owned by Dr Rey, after floods damaged paintings in Signac's home." Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - - This has been adjusted. Van Gogh mutilated himself, went to hospital, was released home to the Yellow House, had to go back to the hospital when he lost access to the Yellow House. Signac visited him late in March while he was in hospital; after that Van Gogh lived for a short period in Dr Rey's rooms. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Rémy (May 1889 – May 1890)

"Many of his most compelling works date from this period" – another "editorial" statement that requires attribution
- Agree, removed.
"It has been suggested..." By whom?
- Inclined to agree, open to suggestions on how to resolve.
  - Tweaked to clarify. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Toulouse-Lautrec demanded satisfaction, and Signac declared he would continue to fight for Van Gogh's honour if Lautrec surrendered." What was the outcome of this belligerent episode?
- Agree, defer to Modernist/Ceoil/Victoria on this one.

According to Rewald - "Henry de Groux (a realist, religious painter VvG once admired) declared that he was withdrawing his work because he didn't want them shown in the same room with the abominible pot of sunflowers by Monsieur Vincent." "But he didn't pull out of the show. Instead at the dinner 2 days later he called VvG an ignoramus and a charlatan. The dual was declared between Lautrec and de Groux (who was the same height as Lautrec) and Signac said he'd carry on the fight if Lautrec was killed....seconds were named.....however an apology from de Groux averted the duel; and de Groux resigned from the group"...Modernist (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, I have added a sentence to clarify the outcome. --John (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auvers-sur-Oise (May–July 1890

I would prefer Barbizon school without the pipe to "Barbizon", as the longer form tells me what Barbizon means without having to use a link. But I am also wondering about the whole sentence: "The Barbizon painter Charles Daubigny had moved to Auvers in 1861, and in turn drew other artists there, including Camille Corot and Honoré Daumier." What is the relevance?
- Agree on the first point, and so actioned. Open to input on the second.
  - I think we need Modernist for this one. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevancy is that it provided context to VvG for his being there to work. The fact that he painted 2 versions of Daubigny's garden and that those others were working or had been working there made his stay there more viable and more relevant to him. Vincent held in high regard the Barbizon school (I prefer that to Barbizon) artists...Modernist (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Modernist, I thought that was the case. Paragraph structure reworked here. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Many of these works are sombre, and reflective of a desire to return to lucid mental health". Again, editorial unless attributed and cited.
- Not yet done. Sure can be referenced.
  - See below. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can supply a ref for sombre; will have to read re return to mental health. Hope to get to it tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Yet some reflect deepening concerns." – editorial again (you could easily omit this)
- Not yet done, neutral.
- I've now removed both of these, well spotted. --John (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This will need a bit of re-reading but I think it's worth keeping. He was under considerable pressure in those last days and scholarly opinion tends to lean towards the belief that the last painting reflected his concerns. Will try to get to it tomorrow. Modernist, what does Rewald have to say about this? Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - About sombre and desire to return to mental health: imo, these points are important and should stay in. These last paintings, his last days, his moods, are extensively discussed throughout the sources. He was concerned about his health, about being a burden on Theo who provided Vincent support, about failing as an artist. It's generally accepted that the last paintings are sombre; I'd prefer not attribute to a single art historian here because that would single out. Nor would I want to put in a stream of refs proving that every one of the nine or ten books I'm currently surrounded by say essentially the same thing. I have added two refs there, which should suffice. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death (July 1890)

We've reached July in the chronology, so it's disconcerting that the section begins: "Van Gogh underwent a further crisis in February 1890." I feel we've covered this ground adequately in earlier sections, and the whole first paragraph could be dropped or absorbed into earlier text, so that the section begins: "On 27 July 1890, aged 37..."
- Moved into chronological order.
"Any of these could have been the culprit..." These needs an "according to" attribution.
- Not yet done, sure it can be referenced. --John (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought we could easily use the source there to reference (Blumer), but after reading it today, I'm not at all convinced we should be using it. It's been in the article since it was added on 5 March 2006, [2] to cite the many diagnoses, and stayed in that position for years. The language about epilepsy and the wording re "culprit" has been in the article since 8 January 2006, [3]. Except for the text having been shoved around a bit and tweaked, the ref shoved around, it's all substantially the same as it was a decade ago. I'd like a small amount of time to dig into this and to verify and so on. I did find a promising article on Jstor last week, shelved it without taking the time to download, but have lost access. I will try to beg access from someone. Alternately I would like to suggest we simply follow Hughes' premise who writes "what his illness was, nobody can say." (Hughes, (2002), p. 8). In my view, we should avoid saying in Wikipedia's voice that Vincent suffered from epilepsy without a very strong source to lean on. Victoria (tk) 21:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am sure that you have looked already but Vincent van Gogh's health discusses epilepsy using these references:

Van Gogh wrote from Arles that the townspeople regarded him "a madman or an epileptic" — letter 589
"Most epileptics bite their tongue and injure themselves. Rey told me that he had seen a case where someone had mutilated his own ear, just as I did, and I think I heard a doctor from here, who came to see me with the director, say that he too had seen it before." — Vincent to Theo, letter 592
"I have every reason to believe that the attack which he has had is the result of a state of epilepsy" — letter from Dr. T. Peyron to Theo van Gogh
Doiteau, V. and Leroy, E. La Folie de Vincent van Gogh, Paris, Éditions Æsculape, 1928.
for example, Vinchon, J. 'Diagnostic de la "folie" de van Gogh,' in Historie de la Médecine Communications présentées à Paris â la Société Francaise d'Histoire de la Médecine en 1960 1960, pages 23 - 24, and Godlewski, G. 'Vincent van Gogh, prince des maudits' in Diamant Actualités Médicales, 1982, Volume 29, 12-16.
Arnold, page 172 --John (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, Dr Rey diagnosed him with epilepsy (see these notes), but what concerns me is that we say twice in the lead that he was a mad or a madman and I think we should avoid suggesting that having a seizure disorder = madness/mental disorder (because it doesn't). From what I'm reading, in France at that period mental disorders were defined as a "type of mental epilepsy" unlike the traditional definition of epilepsy or the modern definition of seizure disorders. I have managed to pull an article from an academic database but only skimmed it and I will take a closer look again at Blumer, which I'm a little uncomfortable using as a source or as the only source. Happy to move the discussion to FAC talk or the article talk to explain my concerns more in depth. I'd only want to adjust slightly and swap a couple of sources; will try to be as swift as possible. Victoria (tk) 11:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - For now I have trimmed out those like neurosyphilis and schizophrenia for which there is no evidence. I brought in a reference from the Health article, but I am unable to verify it. Can someone else, or are there other references out there? --John (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I have at least one more and want to swap out Blumer. Still working on this; I think it has to be done carefully and might take a little time. Victoria (tk) 00:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Illness section is now sorted, thanks to Casliber's edits. Victoria (tk) 22:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final part of the review will follow soon. Much as I am enjoying this, I have a few other things that need attention! Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More – not quite through yet but nearly

Artistic development

"Theo gave Vincent a donation, used to buy materials..." – a bit clumsy; suggest simplify to "Theo gave Vincent money to buy materials..."
- Done.
" From early in 1883 he worked on multi-figure compositions, on which he based on his drawings." Can you explain more clearly what this means? I'm confused by "on which he based his drawings".
- Reworded.
"received technical support" – do you mean technical advice or instruction? Otherwise, what "support" did they provide?
- Not sure. Took out "technical" meantime.
- Tweaked to say technical advice. Victoria (tk) 16:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"intermezzo" doesn't mean interval, which I think is what you intend here. An intermezzo is a short instrumental interlude between the acts of an opera. In an older meaning it was a short musical dramatic work inserted between the acts of a play, and in fact the whole genre of opera arguably evolved from that format – but I must stop the lecture and get on. Sorry.
- Changed to "period".
"due to lack of technical experience" – do you mean "expertise"?
- Presume so, changed.
- Both really. Small tweak to clarify. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably omit the first three words of the last paragraph.
- Done.

Major series

" many of his early works could be described as gauche." Whose opinion is this?
- Removed.
Who is Melissa McQuillan?
- Writer cited in support at end of sentence.
- Ceoil? Modernist? Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Pinging: Ceoil? Modernist? Victoria (tk) 15:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two close "believes". Perhaps one could be "supposes", "suggests", "posits" etc?
- Changed.

Portraits

" but my means of..." I think that's a typo for "by", but it's in a quote, so...
- Changed to "by means of".
"Regarding La Berceuse, we have "It had..." and "it appears to be..." in quick succession. We ought to keep tenses consistent.
- Made tense consistent.

Self-portraits

"encircling the head with a background halo". I see this is cited to McQuillan, but is it McQuillan's voice? The next para also ends with a McQuillan citation where it's clearly not her voice.
The quote isn't very clear, and now removed. I see the bit about the halo is also gone. Ceoil (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped it with another quote, [4], and see comment below. Victoria (tk) 18:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't have McQuillan; swapped the source, added a direct quote (it's longer but I can live with it; it's an important painting). Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian can you clarify what you mean that the "next para also ends with a McQuillan citation where it's clearly not her voice."?? I'm confused. I'm talking about the second paragraph in the "Self Portrait" section. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 17:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The text has changed and I'm not sure what I meant now. Don't worry about it any more. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers

"Van Gogh painted several landscapes with flowers, including roses, lilacs, Irises, and Sunflowers: I don't think the links work properly here, in a sentence where you are listing subjects of paintings (roses, lilacs, irises and sunflowers etc) rather than actual paintings. The Sunflowers painting is already linked earlier in the text, and Irises a little further down.
- Agree, unlinked.
"Both are built..." – is that "Both series..."?
- Both series. Clarified.
Third para needs a lead-in, to give context: "In these series, Van Gogh was not preoccupied..."
- Done.
"The only painting Van Gogh completed during Gauguin's first visit was Van Gogh Painting Sunflowers" – Eh? Names transposed, surely?
- Swapped names.

Cypresses

"It represents an exalted experience of reality," – whose choice of words? Sounds like it should be in quotes. Does the citation at the end of the paragraph cover everything in it?

I don't believe it's a direct quote, but will check and either supply a ref or trim out. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big sigh. I've left this in. When I read about Van Gogh's beliefs about nature and what he tried to achieve in his paintings of the natural world, I'm often reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay Nature. Not sure how many of you are familiar with it, but I believe he and Van Gogh shared the same beliefs. Van Gogh perceived that in Nature (with a capital N) one could see (if one looked carefully) the hand of God (for a better word). Hence, some of these paintings, particularly Starry Night and Cypress and Star can be seen as his personal religious iconography in which Nature is exalted to the sublime, which was done in the stylization/abstract. If that makes any sense? Regardless, I might have been the person to add that word, really can't remember, but I think it should stay in. That's many words to say that I've added many refs. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tempted to strike the big post above. Anyway, the language here is being picked up on mirror sites and I see that we once had a blockquote there citing Pickvance, but without that source to check whether the quote is accurate I've done the best I can. Modernist do you have Pickvance? If not, let's just reword (but I'd still keep exalted). Victoria (tk) 17:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found the original quote under about five layers of wallpaper and paint and more wallpaper. Yes, it's from Pickvance. Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 18:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted now. Victoria (tk) 12:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orchards

" The transience of the blossoming trees, and the passing of the season, seemed to align with his sense of transience..." Repetition. The second "transience" could be "ephemera", or if that's too flighty, "impermanence".
- Changed to "impermanence".
"and it presented him with a world of Japanese motifs which he revelled in". What's the connection? How did the "transience of the blossoming trees..." etc present VG with "a world of Japanese motifs"?

The transience of blossoming trees is a strong motif in Japanese art but it's not well presented. Cut out. Victoria (tk) 16:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. I hope. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Van Gogh was consumed by..." Not sure about "consumed by" in this context. A better word might be "fascinated", or if that's not strong enough, maybe "enthralled" or "infatuated with"

Appears to be gone. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wheat fields

"The weather worsened in July..." – which July?
- 1890. Thanks for your thoughtful and highly diligent review. Only a very few points outstanding on which I will need to defer to Modernist, Ceoil or Victoriaearle. Look forward to resolving them and to your final review. --John (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks John for taking care of so many of these and I echo your words re Brian's excellent review. Brian I hope to take care of the outstanding issues at the soonest tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My final comments

Reputation

" After Van Gogh's first exhibitions in the late 1880s, his reputation grew slowly but steadily among artists, art critics, dealers and collectors.[255] In 1887 André Antoine installed Van Gogh's paintings alongside those of Georges Seurat and Paul Signac, at the Théâtre Libre in Paris; some were acquired by Julien Tanguy." All this seems to contradict the lead, which says: "He sold only one painting during his lifetime and was largely unnoticed by critics until his suicide, aged 37". It's probably the lead sentence that needs amending.
- Lead changed to "He sold only one painting during his lifetime and became famous after his suicide, aged 37, which followed years of poverty and mental illness."
Within the quote: "even though the populace has not crowned to a magnificent funeral". Are you sure it says "crowned" rather than "crowded"? It makes no sense otherwise.
- Ceoil has fixed.
"Theo had been the sole support of his family, and Van Gogh-Bonger was left..." I think in this context I'd call her Johanna (consistent with "Theo")
- Done.
"... and the near-valueless works of her brother-in-law." Needs qualifying, since in fact they were far from valueless. I suggest: "... and what she assumed were the near-valueless works of her late brother-in-law."
- Changed to "and the presumed near-valueless works of her brother-in-law."
  - Interjecting: I'd like us to check into this. Per the sources Johanna still had an almost full collection of his hundreds of works as late as 1906, so they weren't flying out to collectors, nor was she earning money from them. We need to explain that this woman, a widow after not even two years of marriage, found herself in possession of not only her husband's but her brother-in-law's possessions. They really were valueless at that point, and that she had to the sentimentality, fortitude, whatever it was to keep them is probably one of the only reasons we still have the paintings. I wouldn't want to suggest in the article that she kept the paintings because they were far from valueless, because that would be incorrect. Victoria (tk) 16:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added a direct quote and moved it all to a note for now. Open to discussion. Victoria (tk) 16:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Van Gogh's first critical supporter..." reads ambiguously. I assume you mean the first art critic to support VG – but was he truly the first? Perhaps something like: "one of Van Gogh's earliest supporters among the critics..."?
- Done.
I would link "Fauve movement" as it hasn't been mentioned since the lead
- It's mentioned just above and linked as [[Fauvism|Fauvist painter]]

The museum

Only some general ce and slight prose reorganisation

Romanticised life

"...thus allowing projection by a wide variety of geographically and temporally dispersed view points". I'm afraid I can't make sense of that wording.
- Changed to "allowing projection by a wide variety of audiences"
"His mental difficulties were never diagnosed, do not easily fit into any category and are thus left open". "Unexplained may be better than "open". And I wonder if the central phrase "do not easily fit into any category" is redundant. If the mental episodes were never diagnosed, they obviously couldn't be categorised.
- Done
"everyman": The link is to a rubbish article, and I wouldn't use it. It would be better to explain what is meant in this article.
- Done
"...he preferred rural settings, sometimes as a pauper." I don't think he ever preferred being a pauper, rather it was sometimes a consequence of his wish to work in rural settings. I'd tweak this to "he preferred rural settings, sometimes living as a pauper."
- Done, and well seen
" He was single for most of his years" – "single" means unmarried, so he was single all his life. I would omit this short sentence entirely.
- Done
I find it a little odd that the broad summary of Van Gogh's life and career contained in the penultimate paragraph is cited to a single page of one source. Surely many writers expressed themselves on this remarkable career, and we should have a range of views and a couple of quotations.
Yes, looking. 01:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Brain, working through this. As Iridescent pointed out in the PR its perhaps the main reason why well informed readers might look up the page and give a 30 second scan. Not sure its rightly structured yet, and am considering. Iridescent you have been pinged as as one such reader (though with a larger attention span), guidance and a POV would be appreciated. Re cites; yes Brian, np. Ceoil (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On looking closely at it, I think the last couple of paragraphs here are problematic; to give a couple of examples, the Impressionists were certainly not "universally appealing" (a lot of critics loathed them, then and now), and He considered his art as more a line in the continuum rather than a break from the past describes every artist; even people like Picasso and Wyndham Lewis who are seen in hindsight as representing a clean break, saw themselves at the time as the heirs of Cezanne and Kandinsky respectively. The problem is, this article is effectively biographies of two people: Van Gogh the artist, and the comic book superhero Vincent the Mad Genius who Saved the World of Art. This section is necessary to explain how and why the "inventor of modern art" myth came about and that it isn't true, but it's a very tricky thing to write; in an ideal world we'd have point-by-point list of the Facts Everyone Knows ("he invented modern art", "he cut off his ear to impress a prostitute", "his style was unique at the time", "he was the first artist to work in bright colours", "nobody at recognised his talents until after he died", "he saw visions and painted his hallucinations"...) with an explanation in each case as to why it's untrue and what the reality was, but that's not really practical in the Wikipedia format. (I would expect to see Lust for Life mentioned, though, as that's where the fictionalised version of his life really enters the mainstream.) ‑ Iridescent 10:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Iridescent - I don't exactly understand or agree with this: To modern tastes, Van Gogh's career lies between the now universally appealing Impressionists, while also providing a connection to the more alienating non-figurative abstractions of the 1900s and 1910s. He is considered an important Post-Impressionist along with Gauguin, Cezanne, Seurat, and Lautrec who extended the definition of advanced painting beyond the limitations of Impressionism; being in VvG's case an early example of Expressionism...Modernist (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, yes, and this is now gone. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iridescent, I'd originally wanted it all in the section now called "Reputation" with the idea that we'd simply present what happened after he died, his current popularity (i.e prints hanging in offices in Cambodia), a "show don't tell" type section, very dry (and in the version I wrote Lust for Life was included). But I suppose it became too factoidy, it went in another direction, and is now something else. The newer section called "Romanticised life" I would have thought could have been part of that what was supposed to be a reputation section, but I think I lost the plot somewhere along the lines or a request went over my head. I don't even know why I'm replying to this post, (because yours is in reply to Ceoil) except to say that in my view it can all be condensed, summarised, squeezed down. Very difficult to do with the swarm of editing we've seen. Which in itself proves the point. Victoria (tk) 12:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - ~~Sorry Vic, but I couldn't disagree more, and the danger here is hagiography. Show dont tell is fine for minority interest articles, where a certain knowledge can be assumed, but not for this.~~[Striking as realise I was in error 21/8/16] Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't express that well (what I meant was that what I tried did not work) and disagreement is ok, it's how we get things to where they should be and is a normal part of collaboration. I might sandbox some ideas later today; don't want to clog up this page any more, and apologies for the post above. Pre-coffee you know. Always a bad idea. Victoria (tk) 13:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood V. Ceoil (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note this was kicked around a fair bit tonight between the nominators, the content of the sect is stable. Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what we are missing from the very well informed request is that "it isn't true", but thats a can of worms I like to leave closed. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Also re "cited to a single page of one source"; moot now, given the restructuring. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

" have been described as" always brings the questuin "by whom?" This needs to be stated; likewise the strong opinions expressed in the last paragraph about the letters must not read like Wikipedia's judgement. They must be attributed; citation is not enough.

On images: Normally I would say that 90+images is far too many. In this particular case I find the selection of paintings irresistible – perhaps the most attractive feature of the article. I would argue against the removal of any of these. If you want to lose an image or two, some of the non-paintings are less essential – Mrs Bonger-whatsit hardly merits an image. But please leeave the paintings be if you possibly can.

This is a particularly wonderful statement and underscores the attention Modernist and Ceoil have lavished over the years on the visual arts aspect of this visual arts article. Victoria (tk) 02:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been one of my longest-ever reviews, and one of the most satisfying. I look forward to supporting the article's promotion in due course.

I really appreciate the time, care and thought you have put into it. Only a very few outstanding points left now I think. --John (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, echoing John. Meant to get here earlier, but multitasking <cough> watching Olympics. A few outstanding points left; hope to pick up again tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 02:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working through, but re "longest ever reviews", I am not likely to forget "[5]", and the PR. Brian is a reason why we can have nice things :) Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was a young man then... kind of you to remember, though. There appear to be a few unresolved issues arising directly or indirectly from my review. Perhaps one of the team would ping me when these are finally settled. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Brianboulton Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've not checked out all the responses to all my multifarious points, but I have every confidence in this team, who have treated my review with unremitting courtesy and appreciation. If there are a few loose ends still lying around I'm sure they will be picked up soon, and I'm not going to delay my support on that account. A great article which I am sure will have a consistently high and appreciative readership. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Brian, for the excellent review and for the support. Victoria (tk) 16:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted!! Ceoil (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for some amazing input...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent[edit]

Support. All the concerns I had were already raised and addressed at the PR. I appreciate that this probably technically fails criterion 1e, but I'd be inclined to turn a blind eye in this case; it's impossible for an article on a topic with this degree of editor interest and about whom there's constantly being new material published ever to be truly stable. (I would be inclined to drop the last sentence, though. That visitors to the Van Gogh Museum are familiar with Van Gogh is surely not a great surprise, and "visitors come from around the globe" could apply to any significant museum, particularly in light of the fact that the VVG Museum is slap-bang in the middle of the main concentration of hotels in one of Europe's major travel hubs.) ‑ Iridescent 17:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave out the example of the poster of a Van Gogh painting hanging in the office of an official in, I believe, Cambodia, and went for the more generic, but I see your point. Will leave to Modernist & Ceoil to decide whether to keep or trim out. I'm not fussed either way. In terms of 1e, it's a well-curated article, which helps. I run into a similar problem with Hemingway (about the same page views, and also protected), whenever a new book or movie is released. Thanks from me, but the credit goes, overwhelmingly, to Modernist and Ceoil. Victoria (tk) 17:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we keep most of the new revelations out, especially of the "Van Gogh may have been suffering from..." variety. Last one we included was the naming of the 'prostitute Rachael', who it turns out was neither of those things. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did trim out the info about the visitors from around the globe, a day or so after you posted here but it seems to have come back. I've decided to leave it in. Victoria (tk) 22:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there have been so many changes since my initial support, I'll reiterate that I still support it.
One thing I would say though is that I'm not at all keen on the fact that we now state Between 1886 and 1890, Van Gogh changed the history of art in Wikipedia's voice (and without even a citation); there were artists active in France in the 1880s who are widely considered to have changed the history of art, but their names were Paul Cezanne and Georges Seurat. The notion of VVG as a game-changer is a somewhat fringey view derived from The Shock of the New; one of the striking things about van Gogh (and a recurring headache for curators of the Van Gogh Museum looking to pad out exhibitions) is that despite his popularity he had remarkably little influence on subsequent artists other than Matisse and the walled-garden of early Expressionism. (Picasso admired van Gogh, but neither the Modernists & Cubists nor the later 1960s movements inspired by them were particularly influenced by him.) That said, I'm not going to oppose over a single sentence. ‑ Iridescent 09:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the The Shock of the New was produced 1980. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading again, I am also uncomfortable with this, is now removed, and is in part what the "Romanticised life" sect, horribly titled, is trying to get at. Idealisation has overwritten history, as that sentence, based on sources, shows. You were pinged above on exactly this matter, to my mind we have not settled yet. Ceoil (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod[edit]

Looking very good at first glance. Working through:
I have to say I really don't like the multiple image format, though I wouldn't oppose on that. Especially when there's above 2, mini-galleries are better, imo. Some gaps could do with images, especially a bright late painting (or two) opposite the TOC, as otherwise there's nothing really characteristic for some time after the lead self-portrait. There are also long stretches without pics near the end, and near the start some sandwiches that are avoidable.

I'll give small galleries a try as soon as possible...Modernist (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, for better or worst depending on the sect. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a huge white space below the lead pic. On my pc I have to go 8 screens down before encountering any images that most would think very characteristic of VG, then a further 2 before Provence. I think this is too far for the average reader. Given the dissention the images lower down have caused, I think some should be shown here, perhaps as a "Salon des refusees" for those dislodged below. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I was co-opted as a nominator (which I was delighted and flattered at, and I hope I have done a reasonable job in), when I was reviewing the article as an involved commentator, I had a lot of qualms about the number and formatting of the images. Comments made by Brianboulton, Iridescent and Sandbh in their support and Modernist's passion have convinced me that the quantity of images is essential for the article. Ceoil and Modernist have made some adjustments to the formatting, and again I am now satisfied with how the article looks on various devices. I see your suggestion above about putting one of the later paintings into an early position in the article. I am neutral on this. Now wearing my nominator's hat, Modernist and Ceoil, would you support this change? Could it be done without disrupting other things? --John (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a try...Modernist (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a fair point, and like Modernist's recent solution of two smaller images in the lead, which has also been used in other VA FAs. Ceoil (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the letters at the start.
I think they need to be placed and explained upfront as so much biographical and insight by art historians are drawn from on them. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A number of paras are too long - especially given the younger/non-specialist readership this gets. Look at the "Cypresses" section, easily split at "Other...", and perhaps also "Referring...".
Have trimmed down as much as possible. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still a few that should be split. Trimming may well not be needed - the paras are just too long on the screen. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be mention (outside the captions) of the VG Museum, if only for the size of its collections. I'd be interested in the number of paintings in the US, if you have it. The trajectory of his fame/value, and his large output, worked very well for US collectors and museums, and he is probably one of the first European artists with such a high proportions of his works outside Europe. His status as a Dutch national icon is worth mentioning, if you have sources. With being really good at at painting part of the national self-image, but not having produced any artists that even they could raise much enthusiasm about for some 3 centuries, VG has been seized on big-time. Generally a bit more peacock as to his massive reputation in the latter part of the C20 would not be excessive.

"There he lived in the so-called Yellow house,..." - check where that link go, heh, heh. It should be either "so-called Yellow House" or "so-called "yellow house"" I think.

More later. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod. I have the exhibition catalogue for the 1990 centenary exhibition at the Rijksmuseum and I think I can glean some information re Dutch national icon from one of the various forwards, including the tribute from Beatrix of the Netherlands. Re the US collectors, I think I might have seen a paper on Jstor that touched on that point, but I didn't bother to download it. The reading will take a few days. Victoria (tk) 23:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Beatrix quite hits the spot really. And isn't there a mistake in "The Rijksmuseum held an exhibition for the 1990 centenary of Van Gogh's death. The paintings came from their own collection and the Kröller-Müller Museum, which house the two largest Van Gogh collections in the world." - VGM & K-MM surely? Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Johnbod, I thought that was odd. The catalogue says the Van Gogh Museum and the KMM are part of the Rijksmuseum? Are they using "Rijks" as a term I don't understand, or all these museums associated? Anyway, I've tweaked it and will again if you think it's not close enough. Agree re Beatrix; she's a little restrained. But until we find a source re his status as Dutch national icon, would like to keep this bit in for now and then add a little more when the little more is located. If that works? Victoria (tk) 23:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Rijks" (="reich" in German) means "State/National" in Dutch, and there are lots of "Rijksmuseum Footown", Rijksmuseum van Geologie en Mineralogie (now renamed), etc in the NL. Strictly the "Rijksmuseum" used to be the "Rijksmuseum Amsterdam", but they have now co-opted the plain term. The Van Gogh Museum is a "rijksmuseum". See List of Rijksmuseums and Category:National museums of the Netherlands. AFAIK the VGM never came under the "Rijksmuseum Amsterdam", but it might have done. Hope that helps (if you find that confusing, try Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation). Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly gave you your own template (for a few moments). Yes, thank you. That makes much more sense and thanks for calling me on it. Victoria (tk) 01:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, a follow up: I've added information to the "Posthumous fame" section re the Van Gogh Museum and the Kröller-Müller Museum, and in the second-to-last para mentioned collections. After trawling through databases etc., last night the closest I can come are the lenders the 1990 catalogue lists, though obviously out of date. Cannot find any firm numbers. Will this work for now? Perhaps Modernist or Ceoil have a better grasp of this than I. Victoria (tk) 21:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's close enough, I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

This stuff now sorted adequately, and stuck. Dutch national icon not really done, & if sources appear a bit would be nice. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't found anything yet, but I'm working from books. Might be on a website somewhere; will try searching later today. Victoria (tk) 12:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, will keep this in mind. I'm not even seeing it at the Van Gogh museum website, (which btw, does have very nice formatting), but if I come across it, will slip it in at a later time. Victoria (tk) 15:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

images[edit]

Tried to remove two images crammed beneath infobox, calling them "decorative", but was reverted "per FAC", although I can't find any discussion pertaining to it. It looks sloppy and amateur, fails to meet MOS:PERTINENCE. There is something bold and definitive about the lone lead image, and these random additions subtract from that. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try the section with my comments. I wouldn't have chosen a 2nd 1887 self-portrait I think, but the images are certainly an improvement imo. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these specific images needed in this part of the page? How do they improve the article? - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The images look fine, no image clutter...Modernist (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's decorative, but why are they actually necessary? What are they adding to the article? Why should they be placed beneath the infobox? What are they illustrating exactly? - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are there because they improve the article and have made the article better; and apparently you do not agree. Read this WP:IDONTLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How have they made the article better? And again, why are these particular images necessary in this part of the article, and what are they illustrating? Simply saying "they improve the article" isn't persuasive. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HappyWaldo, see this comment at the FAC where Johnbod made his second request for these images. As a nominator I agree with their inclusion and think that's an area we can use to swap various images throughout the year. Here in the Northern Hemisphere in eastern North America we are experiencing an unusually hot summer and those images speak to me quite well in that regard, but I can see how that's a subjective decision. Still it is August and they show August (I believe). Anyway, I think this discussion should be moved to Johnbod's section on the FAC. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 15:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is gaining traction here so might as well stay for simplicity's sake. Images should help the reader as an illustrative aid, not serve to remind one editor what season it is in their part of the world. To everyone else who isn't engaged in the FAC, the images will appear randomly selected and placed. - HappyWaldo (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Victoria, Johnbod and Ceoil; move it; or better yet read this: WP:STICK...Modernist (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist, can you at least answer my questions and present real arguments before killing off the debate? I'm open to being persuaded if you just put the effort in. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HappyWaldo, I thought Johnbod's suggestion was to fill the whitespace along the lines as he has here in Persian art, if that helps to persuade you. But it might be best to have him explain - in other words I'm punting for now. Victoria (tk) 19:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HappyWaldo, you don't seem to have read the section above. See: "Some gaps could do with images, especially a bright late painting (or two) opposite the TOC, as otherwise there's nothing really characteristic for some time after the lead self-portrait." and "There is still a huge white space below the lead pic. On my pc I have to go 8 screens down before encountering any images that most would think very characteristic of VG, then a further 2 before Provence. I think this is too far for the average reader. Given the dissention the images lower down have caused, I think some should be shown here, perhaps as a "Salon des refusees" for those dislodged below." You seem to think that all images should be right next door to some text directly relevant to them, which is, or used to be, a common mistake here. These images are no more "decorative" than any others here. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support the inclusion of the images as I have been convinced that they are an asset here, and I think that represents a hard-won consensus here. However, I am not sure the self-portrait is the best image to use. Is it possible to swap it for a different one, User:Modernist? --John (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can certainly swap that self-portrait out for another image...Modernist (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy response. I think that looks far better. HappyWaldo, can you live with that? --John (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree. HappyWaldo? Victoria (tk) 12:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sold. It's literal filler. Filling up an empty space with whatever strikes our fancy, cause we can. I stand by MOS:IRELEV: "Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available." And make no mistake, if they haven't found a place in an article body with 95 images, they are of marginal value, and not integral to the story. But everyone seems fine with it so there's nothing I can do. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Johnbod makes a good point about there not being anymore representative images after the lead image for a good number of screens. On that basis I think the additional in the lead makes sense. I do appreciate where you are coming from, but disagre on this one. That said you cant win them all, and to get here has been a difficult task. In my opinion its ok to let this objection stand. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More[edit]

I've been waiting for editing to calm down, and now it seems it has. So:

Lead: "In just over a decade he created approximately 2100 artworks, including around 860 oil paintings, most of them in the last two years of his life. They include landscapes, still lifes, portraits and self-portraits, and are characterised by bold, symbolic colours, and dramatic, impulsive and highly expressive brushwork that contributed to the foundations of modern art. He sold only one painting during his lifetime and became famous after his suicide, aged 37, which followed years of poverty and mental illness." Slightly begs the question of "which decade?" Might be rearranged along the lines of: "In just over the decade before his suicide at the age of 37 he created approximately 2100 artworks, including around 860 oil paintings, most of them in the last two years of his life. They include landscapes, still lifes, portraits and self-portraits, and are characterised by bold, symbolic colours, and dramatic, impulsive and highly expressive brushwork that contributed to the foundations of modern art. He sold only one painting during his lifetime and became famous after his death, which followed years of poverty and mental illness."
"Constantijn C. Huysmans, a successful artist in Paris, taught the students at Tilburg." Odd - was the success earlier or later? Don't see how being both at the same time makes sense. Or did he just turn up for a talk?
Done...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Van Gogh refused to attend church, quarrelling with his father as a result, and left the same day for The Hague.[note 6][62] Within a month they fell out, possibly over the viability of drawing from plaster casts.[63]" "They" is VG & Mauve, but I think needs spelling out.
~~Done...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
"This was one of seven canvases sent to Pont-Aven on 4 October 1888 in an exchange of works with Paul Gauguin, Émile Bernard, Charles Laval and others." - the colony needs explaining, maybe "sent to the colony of artists at Pont-Aven in Brittany on 4 Oct ..." The Pont-Aven article is not so informative.
"The portrayals of the Arles landscape are informed by Van Gogh's Dutch upbringing; the patchworks of fields and avenues appear flat and lacking perspective, but excel in their use of colour." No doubt both points are true, but it is not too clear how they are related.
"Artistic development" section is illustrated with 2 paintings of 88/89. Earlier ones would be nice.
No other points. Good job all! Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod! Victoria (tk) 23:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Burton[edit]

Support - All issues now seems to now have been resolved or are under way to be resolved. I am happy to support. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why is the letter to the New York Times a reliable source?~~

I find the article referenced on FN 230 about the Annenberg, and that's ok. Am I missing one? Victoria (tk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm talking about "Van Gogh Myths: The ear in the mirror". nytimes.com. Currently FN 190. It appears to be a letter to the editor from a reader. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I've replaced it. Victoria (tk) 01:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Who is the publisher behind Vangoghgallery.com? From what I can tell the site seems mostly devoted to selling art prints. Is it reliable?~~

These are gone. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I lied. I hadn't realize we still have refs to vgallery imbedded in the notes (nor that we have webarchives imbedded in the notes). I think I noted one of the biographies discusses how the name is pronounced - will have to trawl through and it might take some time. In the meantime, I think Lingzhi is the best to confirm whether the IPA is correct or not (not my field). Will try to get to these this weekend. Victoria (tk) 16:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vangoghgallery.com has been removed. Vggallery.com is a different site, and judging by this article in the New York Times it might qualify as a reliable source. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes vangoghaventure.com, waymarking.com, theartwolf.com and arthistoryarchive.com reliable sources?~~

All gone except theartwolf.com about the price of the painting. Searching for an alternative. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Artwolf is now gone, too. Victoria (tk) 23:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~The Art History Archive (arthistoryarchive.com) is still in the footnotes.P. S. Burton (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Removed now. Ceoil (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would recommend linking all letter to http://vangoghletters.org and staying clear of webexhibits. For consistency, it would also be nice if all letters are cited in the same way.~~

I've deleted a few webexibits and of what's left only one doesn't have a RS to accompany it (which can probably be located). I don't mind having them if readers want to look online, because searching in the books aint easy. Leaving this to the others for a decision. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But I would suggest that the link to webexibits in footnote 6 is formated fully instead of just being a link: "Vincent's nephew noted some reminiscences of local residents in 1949, including the description of the speed of his drawing." –P. S. Burton (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Victoria (tk) 03:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am worried that the extensive citing of Van Gogh's letters shows an over-reliance on WP:Primary sources. Be mindful of not including your own original research~~

See above, most secondary research is based upon them, and why the letters sect was deliberately placed before the bio. Not finding vangoghaventure.com, cn you point me. Vangoghgallery.com is gone, euf, but at least ws one of two refs supporting a claim. The literature here is vast. Bear with us! Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Ceoil. One reason the article should lead with the letter section is to explain where the information about his life comes from. The letters are overwhelmingly used in the sources to the point that each source is littered with quotes. Van Gogh was unflinchingly honest and self-critical, extremely introspective, and there's really no reason, given the nature of his letters not to use them. In my view, every rule has an exception and this is the exception that breaks the rule. If I hadn't been reading hundreds of pages in books and seeing quote after quote after quote, then I'd be more hesitant as I generally am about using a writer's letters (i.e Hemingway for lots of reasons). Our options are to leave as is, because there really are an enormous number of scholarly reliable sources backing up the information (and I've just dragged home three more books from the library), add a RS next to each letter (which will take a year or two or five), get rid of all the letters and swap out with Pomerans annotated print versions (his analysis and annotations = secondary source). My feeling is that we've achieved a nice balance between scholarly reliable sources and the letters that readers can read online, and to leave as is. But as I said above, it's up to consensus. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The letters were annotated by Theo's widow, Johanna van Gogh-Bonger, who later said that she was reluctant to publish because she wanted to avoid details of the artist's life overshadowing his work. She had the letters published in 1913." The chronology hear is a bit confusing. Was it after the annotation or after the publication that she said she was reluctant? Could this perhaps be rephrased to clarify?

This has been reordered. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently re-ordered again. Will re-read the source, verify, and note when she said that if the source tells us explicitly. (Sorry, can't remember off the top of my head). Victoria (tk) 03:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Apart from mirrors of Wikipedia, I can't find any mentions whatsoever of a Galerie Delareybarette. Is the spelling correct?~~

I was trying to work my way through that section and will return to it in a few days. Removed the paragraph for now. Victoria (tk) 01:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the paragraph. Yes, Galerie Delareybarette is correct; that's where he first saw Monticelli's work in Paris in 1886. That it shows up in mirrors probably means this article has been mirrored, but that no one has bothered to look in the deadwood books. Victoria (tk) 15:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Burton (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P. S. Burton, thanks for reviewing. I think it would be more effective to post your comments here instead of tagging the article like you did here without an edit summary, for two reasons. One, when too many people are working the same page at the same time it causes edit conflicts, and two, when someone steps away and then comes back to the tags it's difficult to see who added them and when, but these are valid points that need addressing. We're working our way through the comments and hope to get here as soon as possible. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 23:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Burton Your comments about webexhibit etc. are valid. These are things we have known about for a long time, and discussed on the article's talk page. I will fix them in the next week or two. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

Victoria Ok, I will do so. Just ask if the two issues I tagged are confusing. I think they both should be obvious enough to not really need an edit summary. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed one and replaced the link with an RS (but I did want to eat supper first!). There have been many many edits in the past few days, which is wonderful - it's exactly the attention this article needs and deserves - but I'm having a bit of trouble keeping up. That's really the only problem, but thanks for understanding. Victoria (tk) 00:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no problem. Take your time :) P. S. Burton (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tag in the note saying the Gauguin stayed in hotel and arrived back at the Yellow House at about the same time as the police, which is well sourced and maybe even in Gayford at the end of the para (I haven't checked). Anyway, I have a cite for it, but seem to be unable to unbundle the note, so I'll get back to it later. Victoria (tk) 01:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has been unbundled and cited. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two further comments on the letter: (1) This article says the letters were published in 1914 and not 1913, as our article currently states. Could this be checked? (2) Per this article we should probably say that there are more than 650 letters from Vincent to Theo, rather than more than 600. P. S. Burton (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to John Rewald some letters were published in German in 1906, some more in English in 1913 and the vast majority were published in 1914...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. Will work through the letters section tomorrow. I honestly thought this had been sorted by now. Victoria (tk) 03:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pomerans says "more than 600" and that was the source I was working from. It's since been moved or something, I don't have the sources used there, so maybe someone else will pick up this issue. I've removed 1913, although technically correct b/c Johanna wrote the introduction before the publication, but as noted, it's confusing. Fwiw, I think "more than 600" suffices for the purposes of this article and the more minute details should go the subarticle. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citations to the journal articles Arnold, WN (2004), Perry, I (1947) and Hemphill, R.E. (1961) should be formatted like other cited journal in the article. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for noting. It's only been a little over 24 hours since those were added and the section is still under discussion so let's give them time to settle. Someone will check all the refs once the text is taken care of. Victoria (tk) 23:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been done. Victoria (tk) 16:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 156 "Jules Breton and Realism, Van Gogh Museum" is a dead-url. Is it possible to find the original content online, or could this citation be replaced with a more stable source? P. S. Burton (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another but kept the dead url for the moment (it's not totally dead, just goes to the museum). Let's give someone a chance to hunt that down. Won't get to the others right (below) right away. Victoria (tk) 23:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dead url removed. Victoria (tk) 16:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 233 "Letter 806" should be formatted the same way as the other letters in the references.~~

This has been fixed. (not by me). Victoria (tk) 20:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content of ref 234 ( Van Gogh, Vincent (22–23 January 1889). "Letter 573, Vincent to Theo" . vggallery.com.) does not seem to support the text "Van Gogh painted several landscapes with flowers, including roses, lilacs, irises, and sunflowers" P. S. Burton (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this, probably got misplace from somewhere else. Victoria (tk) 20:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some language confusion might have crept in to this sentence which is cited to Hulsker: "He undertook, but also failed, a three-month course at the Vlaamse Opleidingsschool, a Protestant missionary school in Laeken, near Brussels." I do not have access to the Hulsker's book, so I can only see snippets online, but I am not sure that Vlaamse Opleidingsschool is the schools proper name, it simply means Flemish training college. Judging from these two letters 145 and 148. Also is seems to be a three-year course that he failed after three trial months. It might perhaps be better to write something like this: "In Fall he undertook training to become an Evangelist at a Flemish training college in the Brussels suburb Laken, but failed a three-month trial course." Although it is a minor detail it would be be great if the two letters and Hulsker could be checked to clear this up. P. S. Burton (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks P. S. Burton, that's a good catch. I've swapped the source and made a tweak (might need more) before I'm off on a break. I haven't checked the letters, but yes, essentially that's what's in the biography. Victoria (tk) 03:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Perhaps this could be further simplified and the information about the three months and the three years is an unnecessary detail that can be left out. I think that the main point is that he trained to become an Evangelist/missionary during the autumn months, but failed/"dropped out". P. S. Burton (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've put it back as written but left out Vlaamse Opleidingsschool, which as you correctly point out can be mistaken for a school proper name. Victoria (tk) 13:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you P. S. Burton for the excellent review and for all the work you've done. The article is greatly improved because of your suggestions and your many tweaks. Apologies for the delays btw, and thanks for your patience. Victoria (tk) 22:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your hard work; greatly appreciate your valuable input...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noswall59[edit]

~~Early life, paragraph 1: "his grandfather, Vincent (1789–1874)" – is this the paternal or maternal grandfather?—Noswall59 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC).~~[reply]

Paternal...Modernist (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I think it might be best to clarify that, unless it has already been done. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, added "Van Gogh" to family to indicate paternal. If you don't think that's clear enough we can change to "paternal". Victoria (tk) 18:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better. I may come back to have a closer read through if I have time. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

~~Okay, I've got a bit of time, so I shall post some comments. While much of the article seems well-written, I feel the 'Posthumous fame' section has some awkward phrases and other issues:~~

~~who is Tanguy? (If he is already linked, I apologise)~~
~~what is "Le Moderniste"?~~

Note, we now have an article on Le Moderniste Illustré. Thanks P. S. Burton :) Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The repetition of the word 'champion' at the end of the first para is awkward. In fact, the last sentence refers to Theo as though we know him, and suggests that he was the first champion even though he did a year before Aurier, who is called his "first critical champion". Perhaps a better construction might be "Aurier was Van Gogh's first critical champion, but died of ttyphoid fever in 1892,[218] a year after Theo van Gogh's death, which had removed Vincent's most vocal and well connected supporter."
~~we jump from Joanna to Gauguin person without explanation and this felt a bit awkward~~
~~"wrote that Van Gogh's suicide was an "infinitely sadder loss ..."~~
~~The dates seem to jump around out of chronological order in the fifth para.~~

As a general comment on this section, I feel that it does not provide a clear explanation (or address art historians' competing opinions) about how and why a largely obscure artist in his lifetime became one of the most famous after his death. Maybe I am wrong, but I am not sure it all ties together so nicely in this final section. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Noswall59, those are good observations. We want it to be as clear and accessible as possible to the lay reader. Some of your suggestions have been addressed but I think it needs a little more work. Will report back. Victoria (tk) 23:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victoria. I appreciate there is a lot to do, and you are all doing a great job. —Noswall59 (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Noswall59, I tried to address a few of these points and will go through this section again. I did mention up-page that I'm almost tempted to add a scholarship section as I have in previous FAs, but the amount of reading required is enormous and should be done slowly. In the meantime, will do the best we can here, but I'd prefer not to just throw stuff at it without giving it a lot of thought. Victoria (tk) 22:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Victoriaearle: This is good, much better and clearer now. The chronology works and the awkward champion sentences reworked. The section flows much better. I have two comments. The first is that reference is made to "Bacon", which I assume is Francis Bacon (artist), but ought to be made clear. Secondly, I still feel that a more general comment placing van Gogh's rise in context might be helpful. I assume that his success after his death owed much to the more general nascence of the post-impressionist movement as part of broader developments in modern art; it just so happened that he died just as this movement, which encapsulated his works, took off. If we could perhaps have something placing his rise in a wider context, that would be fantastic. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Noswall59 for striking and posting. Yes, Francis Bacon has been fixed. I added a sentence to the beginning of [6] that might be what you want. Please let us know if that doesn't work, because I suspect there are other sources that might delineate more along the lines of what you've requested. Victoria (tk) 20:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

Images[edit]

I probably won't formally support or oppose here as I have been extensively involved in copy-editing, but I wanted to query the image formatting. I see it has been discussed in article talk. I am uneasy at having so many images emphasised by non-standard formatting. It looks terrible on my big monitor, and the overall effect of so much emphasis is not an asset. Generally, images should be left at standard formatting, with a very few larger for emphasis. What do others think? --John (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think having lots of pictures enhances the article. The appearance will obviously depend on the width of the screen. I've tried viewing the article on an ipad and on my 13in laptop. The ipad in portrait mode works very well with galleries as 2 x 2; in landscape the galleries are 3 + 1 which is less satisfactory. On my laptop it is mostly good but there is white space produced by having too little text to accommodate the picture on the right in Portraits after L'Arlésienne and similarly in Self-portraits. But the overall appearance is fine. Aa77zz (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing against having "lots of pictures", but these two are problematic for me as well. --John (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added text to the "Portraits" section, but still having some trouble with the other sections. I posted a comment at the talkpage. If it should be here, anyone can move it over (I don't mind). I hope to be around less next week - I'm exhausted and have a busier week ahead. Victoria (tk) 01:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this sort of formatting is counter-productive. User:Modernist, what does it add? --John (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are far more visible on large screens and they are important images...Modernist (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are all important and beautiful images I agree. The trouble is they muck up the formatting on smaller screens. We have to have a compromise between the different platforms. A good starting point is to use the standard formatting and choose maybe one or two key images to display at especially large size. Emphasising too many this way makes it look very cluttered at smaller screen sizes. I have been looking at the page with mobile and laptop using different browsers. Another thing that leaps out is that there are so many images. Do we really need all 67 paintings (or whatever the current number is)? I know he was prolific but we need to be selective about which ones we show on the article. On a big screen they look great but again on a phone they make the article awkward to navigate. I think this is my last remaining qualm about this article's promotion. Otherwise I think it is looking great. --John (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John I cut most of them back...Modernist (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a glut of second and third tier Van Goghs in my opinion. Some might be necessary for inclusion but many are not. I think we can begin by removing versions of the same subject, such as Wheat Field with Cypresses and Daubigny's Garden. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are first rate paintings make no mistake - it's useful to show the repetition and the fact that Van Gogh (who was clearly a sophisticated and knowledgeable painter who was aware of Monet who also worked and reworked the same subject) also like other of his contemporaries worked in series...Modernist (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ear[edit]

When I last worked on this in February, the article said

That evening, Van Gogh severed his left ear (either wholly or in part; accounts differ) with a razor, inducing a severe haemorrhage.[note 13 According to Doiteau & Leroy (1928), the diagonal cut removed the lobe and probably a little more.]

We now state:

That evening, Van Gogh wholly severed his left ear with a razor, inducing a severe haemorrhage. A note from his doctor Félix Rey, written in 1930 for Irving Stone and including a drawing of the severed ear, made clear that Van Gogh had cut off his whole ear, except for a small part of the lobe.

I am not happy with the language, especially "made clear". Where uncertainty exists, we should report the uncertainty. I am also unhappy with "cut off his whole ear"; the human ear is mostly inside the skull and cannot be "cut off". We are talking about the pinna or external ear, and that should be made clear. --John (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I was in there early this morning and I think it all needs reworking. A new book was released last week or so, the section got edited, edited again, fixed and so on, and is now the way it is. I'm waiting for a few books to arrive from the library next week (I had to return some and then reordered), because I think it's important we get that right. At the moment I'm not able to view anything on g-books and the books I have aren't bios, so decided to wait. Victoria (tk) 13:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, Modernist, maybe we should use Rewald's account of the mutilation? He seems the most accurate. If so, can you have a go at that section? Victoria (tk) 14:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle In his book Post-Impressionism From van Gogh to Gauguin pp 243 John Rewald says Van Gogh returned to his room and there, assailed by auditory hallucinations, suddenly cut off his left ear. and footnoted (45); on page 248 the long footnote reads: the question of whether van Gogh cut off his whole ear or only the lobe has given rise to many discussions. Dr. Rey and the policeman Robert agreed that van Gogh had severed his entire ear (a version supported by Gauguin although he probably did not see Vincent without bandages), but Dr. Gachet and his son, as well as Theo's wife and Signac, maintained that the painter had only cut off the lobe of his ear; the note goes on to say that Dr. Rey could not try to put the severed ear back in place because it came to the hospital in Arles too late. Rewald also mentions see Doiteau and Leroy: Vincent van Gogh et le dramede l'orielle coupee, Aesculape, July 1936.....among other things...Modernist (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Modernist. That's quite interesting. It's the most concise and best version I've seen and has the benefit of mentioning both possibilities, entire ear vs. earlobe. What do you think of re-working that section per Rewald's account? If we use that version we can replace the Doiteau ref I removed in this edit. I took it out because it contradicted the previous sentence. Victoria (tk) 18:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria please give it your best shot...Modernist (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will need page numbers. And I need to have a break for a while. Victoria (tk) 19:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewald, John (1978). Post-Impressionism: From van Gogh to Gauguin. London: Secker & Warburg. pp 243-248...Modernist (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was able to get a snippet of Rewald, and Sweetman's account is essentially the same, so that's nice to know. I've done a preliminary swing through. Does this work for you, John? And for everyone else? P.s, there is a newspaper ref in there that needs formatting, but I'm clueless. Victoria (tk) 22:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I'm way way behind the curve here so apologies if I am repeating what has already been said, but very recently on some history channel show or other I saw that recently-discovered sketches made by the initial examining doctor showed that almost the entirety of the external ear had been removed. The key words in that sentence are "recently discovered". I hope I am not opening a debate here. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those sketches were by Dr. Rey. The controversy has been discussed...Modernist (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use any sources written in the last 25 years (except I left in the recent art news webcite for the girl's name, which I didn't read and may or may not be correct, because I was too damn tired to deal with it). I looked at the recent book but, no, don't think we can use it. That said, the section needed rewriting because of the recent activity. I've done the best I can. Anyone else can give it shot. I'll be unwatching here for a few days. Victoria (tk) 03:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I've moved the discussion of the various accounts of ear damage into the note; it's vital to include this and to cover the uncertainty but I think having the detail in the main text is a bit prurient. I think it is much better now. What do others think? --John (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I removed that he would have bled to death. This seems very unlikely on the face of it and is debunked in the medical ref. This is part of the myth, and not a plausible part. --John (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good call. Ceoil (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One (probably final) comment here; following some research, I thought the claim about reattachment would have been highly cutting edge in 1888. Possible but pretty unlikely. I made this edit to reflect that. --John (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. It wouldn't have been possible - the technology is very new - but the ear was carried around. ~~Still, it's fine to take it out.~~ Victoria (tk) 15:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather surprisingly, I found that there are accounts of successful nose and ear reattachments going back to Biblical times, but basically you're right, it wouldn't have been as routine a possibility as it is now. I didn't remove it, just altered the wording slightly. --John (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean that it's gone (and have struck). Your edit summary made me laugh and I thought the edit appropriate. At some point I wondered about even having it in (I believe I added it), and I think I was channeling that thought. Victoria (tk) 19:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

I really hesitate to raise this here, but I used this article as an example at another article, where there is a debate about including pronunciation in the lead. Although I stand by my argument that this article uses best practice in using a footnote and a source for the different pronunciations, it also leapt out at me that the source we use for this is not the best. I am sure better sources for this could be found; could they, Victoria, Ceoil, Modernist? --John (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok to raise it. I've added Sweetman as a source: he doesn't go into as much detail as that essay from the VVG gallery so I've kept that too, but he does mention "Gogh" in English is "Go" or "Goff" and that "Gog" is simply wrong. It should be that guttural ch sound found in so many Swiss words (or how I'd pronounce "Loch") - not sure I've placed the ref in the right place. I've checked other sources but not Naifeh & Smith yet; if they say more, I'll add. Victoria (tk) 19:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not finding anything else re the pronunciation. Still looking. Victoria (tk) 15:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a wee hack at this myself. I think it is ok now. --John (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Editør[edit]

The IPA transcription and audio don't match: the first includes "Willem", the second doesn't. The best solution would be to link a different audio file with a native speaker of Dutch pronouncing "Vincent Willem van Gogh". – Editør (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "Willem" to the audio. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! – Editør (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Painting thumbs should be standard size or standard upright size. Modernist reverted my edits and stated "per MoS" in the edit summaries, but this is rather vague and unspecified. Paintings are not diagrams with vital details that would be invisible in standard size thumbs (MOS:IMGSIZE). Thumbs will always be a poor representation of a full size painting, and an image scaled with a 1.3 or 1.4 factor isn't changing that compared to a standard size thumb. So there are better arguments for conformity than personal preference. – Editør (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subsections of "Posthumous fame" are "Early popularity", ranging from the late 1880s to 1914, and "20th century", ranging from ca. 1914 to 1993. So not all of the 20th century is discussed in that latter, so I think a different title would be more appropriate. And didn't anything significant happen since 1993 including the sixteen years of the 21st century? – Editør (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section wasn't mean to be a year-by-year description of what happened when, but rather an explanation of how a painter who was almost unknown when he died in 1890 quickly gained in popularity. If we've failed to convey that, then I think the section should be deleted or rewritten. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the section "Early popularity" is discussing exhibitions during his life, which are obviously not posthumous. – Editør (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but again, this explains the rise of his popularity. Will work on it. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HappyWaldo[edit]

Some suggestions re lead: the opener reads that Van Gogh "was a Dutch Post-Impressionist painter whose work had a far-reaching influence on 20th-century art." This is certainly true, but does anyone else think it's too limited a description? Van Gogh's influence extends into the 21st century, and I think there's consensus that he has a timeless quality that few others possess, regardless of evolving trends in the art world. I think his unique place in the full history of art should be emphasised, something like: "was a Dutch Post-Impressionist painter whose works are among the most famous and influential in the history of [Western] art". The next lines I think are problematic: "He was highly prolific and often completed more than one painting per day. In just over a decade he created approximately 2100 artworks, including around 860 oil paintings, most of them in the last two years of his life." Isn't this contradictory? He painted most works in his last two years, so it's not true that he "often" painted one per day. I don't think he was more prolific than other impressionists either. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at those specific complaints but we are hampered by what the sources tell us. We must follow the sources instead of picking what we choose from the sources. Victoria (tk) 22:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, no I don't think this is contradictory. People who suffer from illnesses are often unable to complete work. There were times he was quite prolific and times when not. Hence the "often". I think you're asking for a breakdown of when he painted prolifically and when not. Am I correct? Victoria (tk) 23:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the posthumous fame section: "In 1896, the Fauvist painter Henri Matisse, then an unknown art student, visited the artist John Peter Russell, on Belle Île off Brittany [246]Matisse had never previously seen Impressionist work, and was so shocked at the style that he left after ten days, saying, "I couldn't stand it any more."[246] He returned a year later as Russell's student, abandoned his earth-coloured palette for bright colours, later stating, "Russell was my teacher, and Russell explained colour theory to me."[246]" What's going on here? Three sentences in and no Van Gogh. Russell and Matisse's artistic relationship is rightly mentioned on their respective pages, but what is it doing here? Confusing way to go about explaining Van Gogh's influence on the Fauves. Should be removed. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been trimmed. Victoria (tk) 23:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see why it belongs. It doesn't explain Van Gogh's influence, just that Matisse received one of his drawings from Russell. What did Matisse or the other Fauves have to say about Van Gogh? Include that instead. Van Gogh's impact on Expressionism also needs coverage. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'd be happier with letting these sentences go. Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly it seems fine to me - it clearly belongs - somewhat obvious - Matisse learns about Impressionism and Van Gogh initially from Russell and essentially invents Fauvism...Modernist (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose what I mean is that the point could be made more succulently. Will address M, but in a few hrs. I agree with you on substance. Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a causal link between Matisse receiving the Van Gogh drawing from Russell and Matisse inventing Fauvism, then it could be summed up in one sentence. But I highly doubt this actually happened. When did Matisse come into contact with Van Gogh's brightly coloured paintings? How did this effect Matisse's art, if at all? This is far more relevant and should take the place of this Matisse/Russell diversion. Quickly scanning Google Books there are so many great sources that deal with Van Gogh's influence on Matisse and the Fauves, they clearly venerated him. In fact it seems that a meeting at a Van Gogh exhibition in 1901 basically kick-started the movement. - HappyWaldo (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the source and looked extensively at how it is presented in this article, I think it is a fascinating story but I think on balance I agree that as it stands it does not belong in the article. It says more about Matisse (and should perhaps be in his article, if it is not) than it does about Van Gogh. My worry is, it looks like we are trying to imply that Russell gave Matisse a Van Gogh drawing, and this changed Matisse's art. But the source doesn't actually say this, so there is a bit of WP:SYNTH going on. If a good source can be found that actually makes the claim, we could use it, but not on this. --John (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given who Matisse is (one of the 2 most important artists of the 20th century); and that this episode took place when Matisse was in his late twenties and (like VvG) just beginning to become an artist - he was on a vacation from art school - and was unexpectedly introduced to Van Gogh's work is highly relevant...Modernist (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW according to the source - Whether or not Russell possessed any of van Gogh's paintings, he certainly talked about them to Matisse. At some point the Australian gave his young visitor one of his van Gogh drawings–something he had never done for anyone before, and would never do again, which suggests that he found in no one else the depth and strength of Matisse's response. Matisse by the spring of '98 began to grapple for the first time with van Gogh on canvas. Maybe I'll add that...Modernist (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better summed up along these lines: "Henri Matisse learned of Van Gogh through John Peter Russell in 1896, and in 1901, along with Vlaminck etc, attended a Van Gogh exhibition which inspired a radical change in their art. Their paintings became more brightly coloured and abstract, and they became known as the Fauves". - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reference that? That would be bogus - totally bogus...Modernist (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick. Here's a nice summary from Vincent Van Gogh: The Drawings: "Introduced to Van Gogh's work at close hand through the suite of drawings Russell owned and those Vollard had in stock, Matisse took in the great 1901 Van Gogh retrospective at Galerie Berheim-Jeune in the company of Andre Derain and Maurice Vlaminck; having absorbed its impact by the time of the memorial tribute held at the Independants in 1905, they emerged as the Dutch artist's heirs under the banner of "Fauves" (wild beasts)." By the way calling things "totally bogus", "obvious" isn't helpful. - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse had already changed his paintings by 1901 and was already what could be called a Fauve or by the very least a Post-Impressionist he was by 1901 a mentor figure to Derain and Braque who were 10 years younger. Yes, the Van Gogh show of 1901 was enormously important and Vlaminck especially was influenced...Modernist (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. But lets leave it at that, maybe two sentences for Vincent's bio. I think if we underplay it like this, casually stated, this instance of his reach will have better impact. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's more concise and makes Van Gogh integral rather than tangential. This is a biography about Van Gogh after all. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Left the opening sentence, then Influenced by van Gogh, he abandoned his earth-coloured palette for bright colours, which is quite the statement. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else concerned by the amount of images in the article body (107 by my count, surely some kind of arts biography record)? The galleries have bloated the article size and reduced the scroll bar to a slither. This is off-putting to readers. "I have to go through all this?!" If they want to look at more images from a particular series, they can go to the article on that series. That's why they're there, to avoid this kind of overload of text and imagery in the first place. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We discussed this above. I slightly share your concern; I love these images and they are all individually important but I am a great believer in "less is more" and you may have a point that 97 paintings are too many for the article. Even a 10% reduction would aid navigation and improve the article, which is in every other respect ready for promotion, in my opinion. --John (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun by cutting eight. I agree with John, and this is a pity. I think that any further removls should be from series, or of images where other included paintings already convey the points made in the text. Ie NOT from development, early career, portraits or self portraits, as there are wide stylistic ranges there. Ceoil (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking this through further, imo the issues isntn the absolute number, but density in a few specific areas. Ceoil (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago I tried this experiment in my sandbox. The galleries are downsized and the "perrow" parameter removed; on my screen it looks fine - in fact it looks quite nice. This was done after going to a computer store and looking at a lot of different devices, but the problem is that I can't seem to convince anyone, partially, I suspect because I don't know how it looks like on someone else's screen. Might look like crap. But, equally, as formatted now the galleries are not looking great on my screen (that's an understatement). I think the best thing to do is to take screen prints and send them out via email. We all want to get this right but the technology isn't helping. Victoria (tk) 15:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can try downsizing and removing the perrow...Modernist (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken screenshots. If you reply, I'll send them to you. Of course I can't guarantee that's what everyone else is seeing, but the Macbook's screen seems fairly good. I found that taking out the perrow allows different browsers to position the images along the entire width of the screen. It's not always perfect, but I don't think we'll get perfection. Victoria (tk) 15:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At 160 a desktop/laptop will display 5 images across; depending on its size a tablet will display 5 across, or 4/1, or 3/2. Phones seems to display each image singly, centered. They look great but it's a lot of scrolling. At 160 we can have galleries of five and will only need to cut out a few. At least I think that might work. Victoria (tk) 16:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator request[edit]

A summary of progress, given that this has become [happily, given the resulting improvements] become so large. IMO: all non trivial points met. In the last 2 weeks there has been top to bottom c.e [John], the addition of a sect on why he is a house hold name,[ahem] context for the letters as the primary source [Modernist, Vic], an overhaul on the nr and placement of images, [Modernist] logical corrections,[Vic, Modernist, John] and tightening of matters of scope.[John] All this is difficult to see and navigate here, I ask that valued reviewers strike resolved issues, so that we can properly gauge. Thanks so far all. Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I think the nominators have done a wonderful job with this and it has certainly improved over time. I conducted some fixes myself, all of which were minor, and further improvements have been made since, by others. It is informative, nicely written, excellently researched and thoroughly engaging. I'd perhaps not add any more images as I think there are more than enough; in fact, I might say that it has one too many, but it's certainly not a deal breaker. Great work by all and a shining example of what can happen when everyone pulls together. Cassianto ^Talk 22:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cassianto, for reading and for the support. Victoria (tk) 00:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes thanks Cassianto for both, and the talk page suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh[edit]

I read the lead a few days ago and found some sentences to be too long, with too many concepts, sometimes unrelated. I've had a go at copy editing it to try and make it easier to read. I adjusted the positioning of some commas where these appeared to be slightly out of place.

At the end of the lead, it now says, "His reputation began to grow in the early 20th century as elements of his painting style came to be incorporated by the Fauves and German Expressionists." I couldn't see anything about the German Expressionists in the main body of the article, unless I've missed it. Should this be addressed?

The painting images make me feel like I'm in in art gallery, looking at his pictures and reading about him. Not many articles do that. Sandbh (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading and commenting. I have added a sentence to the body about German Expressionism, well spotted. --John (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandbh, I had added and then deleted from that section (see the deletion here) specifically about Die Brücke artists because the section was getting long, but I think I trimmed out too much. I'll put it back, but perhaps in a more succinct manner. That's a good catch, btw. Thanks for noting it. Very nice comment about the images. Victoria (tk) 00:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seppi333[edit]

I figured I'd do an image/MOS review (criteria 2 & 3) due to the large number of images in this nomination.
Question to the nominators: has anyone gone through and verified that the images have appropriate copyright licenses yet?

Images: Given the fact that this article is about an artist, the number of images included seems reasonable to me; however, the layout needs a little bit of work since there's some text MOS:SANDWICHING on my laptop browser (chrome, wide screen display), but not on my mobile browser. The 2nd and 3rd images under Vincent van Gogh#Early years, the first 2 images under Vincent van Gogh#Etten, Drenthe and The Hague, the 2 images under Vincent van Gogh#Death (July 1890), and the first 2 images under Vincent van Gogh#Reputation are creating text sandwiches on my laptop browser. The most obvious fix would be to right-align both images, but I'll leave it up to the nominators as to how to address this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm striking this per the discussion below because I'm viewing this in a high resolution. I imagine most people aren't using my settings so I'm not going to require this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book citations: There doesn't seem to be any consistency in formatting ISBNs in the references. There's a mix of 10-digit and 13-digit ISBNs with inconsistent hyphenation (e.g., compare ISBN 0-8109-1632-0 to ISBN 0-679-43428-3 and ISBN 978-0-520-02515-8 to ISBN 978-1-58093-301-8). These should be consistently formatted. I'd suggest picking either the 10-digit or the 13-digit format (the 10-digit seems to be most prevalent in the article at the moment) to use for all book references and removing the hyphens from all ISBNs to keep them consistently formatted. Edit: I know that what I'm asking is a pain in the ass to do (I've routinely formatted ISBNs ever since Sasata asked this of me in my first FAC), so if you guys can let me know which ISBN format you want to use (10 or 13 digit), I'll help reformat at least half of the book citations. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC); Updated 06:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm satisfied with the consistent use of 13 digit ISBNs, excluding the ones that have issues with converting the 10 digit to the 13 digit format. Removing the hyphens would be a plus, but I'm not going to require this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book publication dates: The vast majority of references in the article are book citations that list only the year of publication. A small handful include the month and only 1 lists the day. I'd suggest removing the month and day from the |date= parameter in all the {{cite book}} templates in the article to keep the date formatting consistent; alternatively, the month or day and month of publication could be added to all the book references, but that would be a lot more work. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that you guys standardized every date to the year format. While I only had the cite book templates in mind, I think the citation section looks a lot better now that all the citations use only the year in the publication date. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALT text: Per MOS:MOS#Images and MOS:ACCESSIBILITY#Images, all images should have alternative text. Based upon the altviewer tool and a quick look at the article source, the first 3 images in the article and a number of others are currently missing alt text. Alt text should be added to these images in order to conform to the MOS. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the images have alt text now. I don't see any issues with the current alt text, so I'm satisfied. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks Seppi333. I'm a little surprised that you're seeing text squash because we've spent a lot of time discussing this, working on the images, looking at them with different devices. Is your image size above the default 220px in your Wikipedia preferences, or are you boosting your text in your browser? Basically after hours working through to get it as good as can be but not perfect, we've decided we can't format for all browsers/devices, so we've been giving the mobile view a bit more preference. About the ISBNs - I can run them all through the tool to convert, but for some reason I'm sometimes hesitant to convert speciality foreign-language books that are sitting on my lap and only showing a 10 digit ISBN to 13. Anyway, I might be able to get to it tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the main reason I'm seeing sandwiching on my browser is because my resolution is set to 1920x1080. My default thumbnail size is set to 300px. In any event, the easiest way to be absolutely certain that text sandwiching never occurs is to keep all images on 1 side of the article. I realize that some people don't like doing this though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After logging out, I still see sandwiching between the four sets of images that I mentioned above so it doesn't seem to be arising from my non-default image settings. As for the foreign language textbook ISBNs: if for some reason there isn't a 13 digit version listed and the 13 digit format is used for consistency in the cite book templates, I'd consider the non-standard ISBN formatting in that particular reference to be a reasonable exception. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative~~ Support, ~~provided that the image alts are added~~. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seppi333, I didn't quite finish this morning before having to leave the computer for a while, but now I think I've got all of the ISBNs converted, with a single exception that the tool doesn't seem to be able to convert (the publication is a 1990 exhibition catalogue for the Centenary held at the Rijksmuseum, so I'm not surprised). Dates are fixed and various other fixes. Thanks for finding those. We're very close to having consensus on all the images and once that's achieved the alt text will go in (if it's not already been done as I'm writing). As far as the text squash - I'm still not seeing it and I'm working on a laptop. I've checked with various browsers, logged in & logged out, so my sense is that we're as close as we can get and this formatting won't be perfect on every device. Hope that works. Thanks, again. Victoria (tk) 19:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had been going through the images on commons and checking and updating the copyright licences until about two weeks ago, when all was ok, but a final audit might be in order. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just saw this re checking licenses. Yes, agree. Seppi333, I just looked at my monitor setting (1280 x 800), I guess that might explain the difference? Victoria (tk) 01:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. There appears to be a new set of sandwiching issues; some of the image pairs that I pointed out previously are no longer causing sandwiching though. I'll follow up later and point out the current problematic image pairs when I have more time. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's only 2 minor sandwiches that I see while logged out at the moment. These are screenshots of the article w/ the sandwiched text marked - [7] [8] - both sandwiching image pairs are in the last section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Seppi, that's how they appear on my screen too. They're pretty minor cases compared to the others that were actioned though, I think we could allow a bit of leeway there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt is done...Modernist (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Seppi333 for the comments and for the support. Yes, we're still working on the formatting issues. Getting there. Your comments have been useful in that regard. Victoria (tk) 15:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

I'm seeing the same sandwiching in the same sections Seppi notes at the top of their comments above; my screen res is the standard 1366x768 for my laptop, and my WP image prefs are default. I would've thought the sandwiching could be minimised by pushing the last image in each section down a paragraph, which doesn't look like it would encroach on the following sections (except in the Death section, you may as well leave that as is). Let me know what you think anyway.
I'm also seeing several harv errors, per this script, which may mean broken links between citation and reference -- pls check.
Possibly more later as I walk through... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iain, re sandwiching, I've at least sorted the examples highlighted by Seppi. There is one broken link per that script - frankly I don't understand cite templates so can't help. Lingzhi did all the heavy lifting in this respect; if he could do one last act of kindness. Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I don't have Ucucha's script installed but just went through and checked manually. I found a few mistakes (my mistakes, as it happens), and fixed them. If it's not too much trouble, can you run the script again and let us know if it's still showing errors. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks guys, I tweaked a couple of things after you did; the sandwiching seems less pronounced. I definitely saw half a dozen harv errors before but they're certainly gone now. Will aim to return soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tweaking. I don't see the sandwiching so it's all guesswork. Re the refs, yes, about a week ago I changed a lower case "v" to uppercase on a source used at least half and dozen times, and well ... Thanks for noticing and mentioning. Victoria (tk) 00:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I think this is ready, but I'm going to hold to see if you have any other remarks. I don't see the sandwiching but I'm at a stupidly large resolution. --Laser brain (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Andy, I think we can wrap this up -- since I only queried image placement as part of a pre-closure check, I think I can proceed with promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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