Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warlugulong/archive1

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 12:29, 14 May 2014 [1].

Warlugulong

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a small article about a very big painting. An epic description of sacred stories from Central Australia, it set a record for the price paid for Indigenous Australian art when it was bought by the National Gallery of Australia in 2007. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For a painting that's 6m2, File:Warlugulong 1977.JPG is tiny. I can't make out any details and thought it looked like stone and moss. Wikipedia's non-free policies may limit the size of that file, but consider adding a second image showing zoomed in details, highlighting one of the stories. - hahnch e n 13:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photography is prohibited in the gallery, and I have not located any close-up images. ~~The image here is at the same resolution as the National Gallery uses in its online collection image.~~ I sympathise with the problem, but I have no solution at this point. :-( hamiltonstone (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the zoom button... - hahnch e n 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, i thought i did that but only got a larger version at same resolution. You are correct. I'll work on this... hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, had a go at that. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually just photograph your screen? Use the print screen function, copy it into paint, crop it and save it as PNG. You should get higher quality and lower resolution. - hahnch e n 20:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I could, I would do that, but my 'print screen' function doesn't work (never has - I don't know why), and 'print to file' appears prevented by the host site (doubtless some sort of nifty copyright control). hamiltonstone (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Hahnchen for sorting out the close-up image. All good. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Miegunyah Press or The Miegunyah Press?

Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in where you include state: once Melbourne has it, the next time it doesn't

Done.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FN15: page? Also, that parenthetical probably shouldn't be italicized

It was an online article and I had omitted the link. I've fixed that. I'm pretty sure the parenthetical part should remain italicised as it is the title of that edition / part of the newspaper in question, but will take further guidance. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FN18: location? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found.

Thanks Nikki! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My preferences show Hidden categories, revealed as including: "Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters", and "CS1 errors: dates". Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Johnbod, i don't what those things mean or how to address them - for example, i don't know how to determine if a template parameter is deprecated or what the preferred alternative is - and i don't know how to view hidden categories. Any pointers? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can turn on the ability to view hidden categories via Preferences (see here for directions). Being able to access those categories may help you address those parameter and CSI date issues (though not having a real understanding of their purpose or effect on an article's quality, I'm not sure if they're really things that you would need to fix. I'll leave that up to the other reviewers). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 16:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruby. Having read this, i was able to identify the deprecated cite template parameters and fixed them. My hunch is that the "CS1 errors: dates" message may be a false positive - I can find no parameter errors or deprecated template terms in the article that relate to dates. But I also can't get rid of the bloody message. Hopefully someone else will come up with something...hamiltonstone (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't loose sleep over this, but maybe leave a request for assistance on the HIDDENCAT talk. Ceoil (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~...Indigenous men at Papunya, in Australia's western desert, began...~~ ~~- these subordinate bits I often put in between mdashes, just to break up a whole slew of commas.~~

Sometimes agree, but don't think this phrase is an appropriate candidate for such dashes, as it isn't the sort of 'additional side observation' that best suits that punctuation.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~can we link "synthetic polymer paint" to something?~~

Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lungkata is italicised and unitalicised....also is it worth a redlink as a significant spirit/being?~~

Unitalicised the one instance where it had been, for some reason. Line ball on the latter. I'm probably inclined not to. Ive seen the term in three contexts: this painting by Clifford Possum, the middle name of another notable artist, and a walk in Uluru NP. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is pretty small and this might indeed be all we can get that is citeable - if there were any interviews where the artist had discussed the owrk or any more analysis of the themes in the painting (colours chosen/whatever), that would be good to add. However it is engagingly written and I can't see much wrong prosewise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this and this and have ordered a book from the library that i don't think i have yet checked, to see if i come up with anything further. Thanks, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better. A couple of other things..discussions of the themes seems a touch sparse but maybe nothing more exists to cite, so I suspect what we have fulfils comprehensiveness.....?

OK, i have checked two books that arrived, and one did allow me to add some significant material: the diff is here. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the painting is on display in canberra....you haven't actually said. Has it been loaned anywhere?

Somewhat to my surprise, I couldn't find anything that says it is on permanent display, though i believe it to be. Certainly it is currently on display on level one, as the NGA website shows, but it doesn't specify that this is permanent, so there didn't seem much point in saying more than what the article currently specifies: that the work is in the NGA collection. I'm not aware of it having been loaned and the NGA text does not indicate that it has.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hmmm, unless I am missing something, the article as it stands now does not say the NGA has it on display, only that it has bought it....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

OK, tweaked. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Otherwise looking on target on prose, pending reolution of comprehensiveness queries...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment Why is "Indigenous" capitalised throughout? It's not derived from a proper noun like "French" or "Afro-Caribbean", it's not followed by capitalised nouns (so we get "Indigenous men", which looks odd), it's not even restricted to this use. You can have "indigenous (sic) Fijians", even indigenous plants and animals Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the standard usage in Australia, when referring to the indigenous people of this country. See for example this from Sydney Uni or this from the Australian National University; for an example of the capitalised usage, from an Australian government website, see here. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I couldn't see anything else, changed to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
- You can switch off now, bit I do have comments to prove that I read it.
- Why do we capitalise "indigenous" but not "Western Desert"?
  - For the reason regarding Indigenous, see response to Jimfbleak above. On western desert, arguably it is a region rather than an official geographic placename, but given the use of caps in the article that is the target of the link, i have indeed capitalised it. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Should Alice Springs be linked?
  - Yes. done.hamiltonstone (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Described as "epic"[18] and "sprawling",[19] critic Benjamin Genocchio This is awkward, as at first glance the adjectives seem to apply to Genocchio. Can we re-word this?
  - Agree. Had a go. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And do we need to repeat that he is a critic?
  - No. Fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Should the Yuendumu region be linked?
  - Yes. Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It was purchased for A$1,200 by the Commonwealth Bank, which hung it in a bank training centre cafeteria, on the Mornington Peninsula. Can we get rid of the comma?
  - Yes. Here's hoping I chose the right one! :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Hawkeye for taking the time.hamiltonstone (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very nice article. I have only a few comments:
- I'd link Alice Springs the first time it's mentioned.
  - Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In the same sentence, you write "$2.4 million" and "$1,056,000". Unless the MoS says otherwise, I'd write these two in the same format (unless there's some other good reason, like that the source for the larger figure is not specific enough to expand it).
  - I could do $1.056 million, which is how the source gives the numbers, but I've opted for "just over $1 million", which seems precise enough to make the point. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "As of 2014, the work is on display in the National Gallery." I've always been troubled by "as of" statements, but the guideline doesn't seem to offer a straight answer. It might be more informative to say "Since 20__, the work has been on display in the National Gallery." --Coemgenus (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that it isn't the ideal formulation. The source however just says that it is on display now. It doesn't actually say when it was put on display. Now, given the amount of $$ they paid for it, I'd figure the gallery would have put it straight on the wall in 2007. But I can't prove it. hamiltonstone (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, that makes sense. Works for me. This is a good article, I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I didn't see a review of media licensing but the FURs for the two images employed look satisfactory to me, so we'll call it a day here, tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2014 (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) 09:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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