Talk:The Stone Breakers/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 17:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review the article. AM

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Review comments

Lead section, infobox

• This is an important work in the history of realism and in Courbet's career, but the infobox lead section doesn't emphasise the nature of its importance properly. not sure how to do this

My apologies for the typo, now corrected. Imo this book (p.343) summarises rather well the importance of Courbet painting in relation to both realism and the times he lived in, and i would consider making use of it. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like I have to purchase the book because I have no access to page 343.Bruxton (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I added a few news sources which discussed realism and the painting

• Paris salon – both words have capitals.  Done
• an old man and a young man breaking rocks – amend to something like ‘an old man and a young man, both breaking rocks’ to make the text a little clearer (minor point).  Done
• The second paragraph includes the word painting four times. Consider including synonyms here (e.g. composition, work) to improve the prose.  Done

OK, you might take a look at the Reception section and do something similar, where painting occurs 11 times (in two paragraphs). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC) I have used synonyms in place of five occurances.

• which was displayed – ‘displayed’? not sure what to do here

Apologies for not being clearer, I would consider amending The version which was displayed at the 1850 Paris Salon to 'The version displayed at the 1850 Paris Salon' to improve the prose slightly. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)  Done

• The second version of the painting should be mentioned in the infobox.  Done
• That the painting is sometimes called ‘Stonebreakers’ (see Ref 2 (Cole et al)) should I think be mentioned in the lead.  Done
• Link high art (High_culture#High_art here and in the Reception section); critic.
• being relocated by truck – is it known where to?  Done
• More details of the second version of the work prior to WWII would be helpful here.
• Dresden Museum – the city had/has many museums, including the Dresden City Museum. Was Dresden Museum its pre-war name?

OK, according to this, the museum the painting was held in prior to its destruction was the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)  Fixed This 1955 source says Dresden galley so it is changed.

• Winterthur, Switzerland - only 'Winterthur' needs to be be linked (here and in the text below, see MOS:OL).  Done
• at least two versions – the main text provides information about two versions, not at least two.  Done

History

• Unlink Gustave Courbet in the last paragraph (duplicate link), and refer to him here simply as Courbet.  Done
• Introduce Gustave Courbet in the first paragraph.  Done Not a bio, just one sentence
• He went on to describe – ‘Courbet went on to describe’, for the sake of clarification (minor point).  Done
• dichotomy – could a less technical (and potentially confusing) term be used instead?  Done
• own last name (Courbet) – the word in brackets seems unnecessary.  Done
• much smaller; much darker – I would avoid using much, which is subjective and open to misinterpretation.  Done
• It is not on display – this seems an unnecessary point, after all, most of any museum's items are kept in storage.  Done
• In the caption, consider amending National Gallery of Art to ‘National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.’.  Done
• Consider using a consistent format for the illustrations that are works of art, i.e.. Gustave Courbet, Les Casseurs de pierres (1849) Oskar Reinhart Collection, Winterthur; Firmin Gillot (after Gustave Courbet), The Stone Breaker (undated), National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C..  Done
• I have uploaded a slightly better-looking image and provided more information on Wikicommons here (minor point).  Done
• The sketch – the reference describes it as a drawing, I would have said that a sketch was something different.  Done

Analysis

• The link to realism, which is a duplicate link, should be removed.  Done
• Are Francis and Marie Wey notable in any way, other than being Courbet’s friends? I cannot find that they were independently notable.

@Bruxton: OK, it looks like one of them has an article in the French Wikipedia, and so needs to be linked (Francis Wey) and introduced within the article. Marie was his wife, neé Floresca Bévalet. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks, I added a short description for Francis with a link to the french wiki

• his other painting (A Burial at Ornans) which was also displayed – it needs to be clear whether or not these paintings were on display together. Presumably they were (see Ref 1 (Boime)).  Done
• In a letter Courbet described the painting – was the letter dated, is its recipient known? Which painting is being referred to here, the original or the replica? it was the same November 1849 letter to Francis and Marie Wey, I clarified  Done
• It seems strange that a description of the work is included here (The painting is in the realism style, and depicted two peasants (a young man and an old man) breaking rocks. The men are shown as two road laborers in unclean clothing. They wear wooden clogs which the press of the day satirized.) Surely this text belongs in a section of its own (‘Description’). Courbet’s description of his work should also be moved to this section. I. created a description section, but I wonder if it would not be better to have ==Description and analysis==  Done

Good idea. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)  Done

• Link clogs; satirized (Satire).  Done
• The text appears to discuss two quite separate paintings at the same time, so comes over as a little confusing. I would start a new paragraph from The painting is in the realism style.  Done
• Could a few details be provided to help explain to readers why/how clog wearing was satirized? It is mentioned in the sources provided.  Done
• the men had tools – some description of the tools depicted would seem useful, as the text refers to their potential use as weapons, and presumably not all readers would be familiar with them. they appear to have a hammer and perhaps another tool with a longer handle. The source does not say which tools

This source (p.76) refers to "long-handled hammers". Amitchell125 (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed I added the long-handled hammers Bruxton (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Other artists like Jules Breton portrayed the plight of the rural poor. Many artists have depicted the working poor. Why mention Breton in particular? I mentioned Breton to show that Courbet's depiction of peasants was different. Breton showed the peasants in a much more pleasing way.

There's possibly more that can be said here about the two artists and their approach to depicting the working poor. The source used mentions that "In the early years of his career Breton was inspired by Courbet’s realism. However as his career progressed he tended to present idealised images of the lives of the rural poor. His figures became classicised, his compositions orderly and his landscapes bathed in golden light."—this could be paraphrased to be included in the article. It may also be worth saying that Breton used his future wife as a model in The Gleaners, whereas Courbet depicted the workers themselves. How about including Breton's work here (see link) for the purposes of illustrating Breton's approach? Amitchell125 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

a few days ago I started the article for The Gleaners (Breton painting). I have included the image in the article along with more info

• There is information about the painting in Chapter 5 of Clark’s Image of the People (1999) here that does not appear in the article, which suggests more research is needed. I do not have access to that part of the book, but I have added other sources

Reception

• Max Buchon has his own article in the French Wikipedia (link using Max Buchon). I started a draft for Buchon but I did not yet publish it, so I added the link you suggested.  Done
• I would add a comma after After the 1850 Paris Salon (minor point).  Done
• described the sentiment – what sentiment is being referred to here?  Done
• L'Illustration also published – why also? removed also  Done
• from the Paris Salon seems redundant imo, and could be edited out.  Done
• They went on to describe – ‘They described’?  Done
• Le Moniteur Universel should be in italics.  Done
• The paragraph relating to the location of the during its existence, and its destruction, needs to be moved from this section to ‘History’. Done
• Ref 2 (Cole et al) refers to the public being “scandalized” and that Courbet “achieved notoriety”, which is not the same as uneasy, as noted in the article. I added a paragraph there to cover these topics  Done

Not yet done. The article still doesn't seems to include much about the public scandal the painting caused. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what else is needed here. The section has much critical commentary in the first paragraph. The last paragraph in description and analysis also covers this well

I just added more about this subject.

Bruxton (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added a significant amount of critical commentary including the "scandalized" comment. I am not sure how much farther I can take the critical commentary without being redundant.

References

• What makes you think Ref 7 (Phaidon) is a reliable source?  Done looks like that source was added in 2017 by someone else, I removed it.
• The url for Ref 12 (Collins) doesn’t help to verify the text, so I wouldn’t include it in the citation. It is used for two citations and it seems accurate

Apologies for not being clearer, it's not Collins I would delete, it's the Google Books link to Collins, as none of the text can be accessed online. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)  Done

• Consider replacing the url for Ref 2 3 (Cole et al) with this from the Internet Archive.  Done
• Ref 3 (Gunderson) provides more information about the importance of the painting than the article gives. I just added a bit more from the source. I think I have used as much as I can from it
• Ref 4 (Roemerholz) does not appear to verify the text. the painting is reversed and darker. I stated that as it seemed like WP:SKYBLUE. The source does verify the collection, signature and size

Understood. AM

• Consider amending {{Gustave Courbet}} to {{Gustave Courbet|state=collapsed}}, as the larger version of the template takes up a relatively large proportional of the article’s space.  Done

Not yet done. AM I was reverted diff

 Done again by me, with a note added to ask for a discussion before it reverted (the revert was likely done in good faith). AM

• Not GA, but I would check the formatting of the references – e.g. titles of books should really be correctly capitalized (see Ref 11 (Muller)), abbreviations should be avoided (see Ref 13 (Streiter)); Chicago Illinois should read ‘Chicago, Illinois’ (Ref 1); Oxfordshire should read Milton (Ref 9 (Facos)) (minor point). I believe that I corrected these issues

Thanks, I'll go ahead and make any amendments if i spot anything else. AM

• There’s an issue with the references for the quotes, e.g. He went on to say that it was a successful "socialist painting"- the quote doesn’t seem to be cited by the reference given (p158). This seems to be happening with the other quotes, so please check the references are correct. The exact language is a successful case study of a "socialist painting". So I added the sentence.  Done

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 3 July to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Please note that I would not normally extend this deadline. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Why would the reviewers want the artist's navbox collapsed? It is not large enough to collapse sitewide, and per navbox respect, so it's curious why it would be a stated requirement to achieve "good" article status. I see a concern was that it takes up too much space, which is an opinion (it seems fine to me) so again, navbox respect, and please realize navboxes are not seen on mobile. I would not oppose collapsing it on this page, as this has already occurred, but would ask that such a requirement be removed from future good article discussions and considerations unless the navbox is obviously too large for the page, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Randy Kryn. AM

Hi all, I am very happy to see this article getting much-deserved attention and appreciate Bruxton's hard work on the subject. Just for the record, I wanted to include some comments regarding this article I previously shared with Bruxton on their talk page. The first two are free source suggestions, vetted and reliable, which could be used to replace some of the less useful sources including the Oskar Reinhart Collection 'Am Römerholz'.

• Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker, "Gustave Courbet, The Stonebreakers," in Smarthistory https://smarthistory.org/courbet-the-stonebreakers/
• Galitz, Kathryn Calley. “Gustave Courbet (1819–1877).” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/gust/hd_gust.htm (May 2009)

I also agree with @Amitchell125 comment about some additional research for the Reception section. As indicated earlier, Clark, Timothy J. Image of the People: Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution. United Kingdom: University of California Press, 1999 should be mentioned, as Clark's scholarship on the artist has been very influential in subsequent art historical studies of Realism and he discusses the Stone Breakers; moreover, Fried, Michael. Courbet's Realism. United Kingdom: University of Chicago Press, 1992 warrants at least a sentence. Feel free to let me know if there is any way I can help. Ppt91^talk 18:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91: thanks for the above suggestions, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Peasants of Flagey

If we are in the mood to add more sources - neither of the above two mention the Winterthur version, by the way - I'd suggest Claudette Mainzer's 1982 PhD thesis from Ohio State University (here) which includes a lot of additional detail and connection to the two other Franche-Comté works exhibited at the 1850 Salon, his Burial at Ornans and Peasants of Flagey (right), including the name of the older stonebreaker (Claude-François Gagey : his wife Mme Gagey is in the crowd in the Burial), the reason why he was mending the road (labour in lieu of paying taxes - derived from the old corvée royale, mandatory annual labour to maintain the roads), quotes from relevant letters, early exhibition of the completed works in Ornans, Besançon, and Dijon before the Salon, the reason for the reversal of the composition from the preparatory study now in Winterthur, and a lot more. The result would be a much stronger article, arguably better than "good". Theramin (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Getting closer

There's not too much more work to do here, I'll add small red crosses (N), where I think issues are still to be addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Passing

Passing now, as the comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Congratulations! Amitchell125 (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)