Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vincent van Gogh/archive2

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

• Support. All the concerns I had were already raised and addressed at the PR. I appreciate that this probably technically fails
  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

• 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.

• 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

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

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

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

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

• 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]

• 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

• 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

Images

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

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]

(

• 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

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

• 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

• 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

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

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

I figured I'd do an image/MOS review (

• 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 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]

• 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

• 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
  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
  ]