Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gao Qifeng/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 November 2024 [1].

Gao Qifeng

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Chinese painter, one of several who sought to introduce a "new national style" of painting that blended traditional approaches with Japanese and European ones, as part of a broader aspiration to create a new China. If this is promoted, it will be my first FA in... eight and a half years. I would like to thank Rollinginhisgrave and SchroCat for their comments at the GA and Peer reviews, respectively. The article is looking in really good shape! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing, but can the caption for the lead image say roughly when it was taken? If that information exists in sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

I'll get back to it as soon as possible. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda late to the party but it seems like most of the issues I found before were already resolved below. After reading it again, I found no issues (for me) at all. Support 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

Good to see something about China here.

  • The lead section seems to assume that the reader knows many things already, and could be improved by making some things clearer:
    • You could state "older brother" instead of just "brother", to give a hint why he was following this brother.
    • Gao joined the Tongmenghui – You explain this term in the main text but not in the lead; since the lead should be as accessible as possible, it makes sense to explain it there too.
    • where he established the Tianfang Studio – I had no idea what this "Tianfang Studio" is supposed to be. Perhaps add that he teached students there, which gives the reader a good impression.
  • In the lead: he published The True Record to challenge the Qing dynasty – the main text does not state this fact; instead it seems to say that the Qing dynasty has already ended at that point.
  • Lead: later, the Beiyang government. Although offered a position in the new Republic of China, – The chronology seems wrong here, which is confusing. He was offered that position before he criticised the Beiyang government, but this sentence seem to imply it was the other way around, which makes little sense.
  • You sometimes provide translations, or the originals of translations, and sometimes not. For example, the "Chinesische Malerei der Gegenwart" lacks a translation (it should be "Contemporary Chinese Painting"). Also, you have the Chinese original in explanatory note e, but not in m.
  • I'll get a bit of a footnote ready for the German exhibition. I've been unable to obtain the original Chinese for [m]; Chu does quote the passage in her 1981 publication, which was bilingual, but I only requested the English at REFEXCHANGE. I could nix the original from [e] to standardize. Thoughts? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing for the Southern Metropolis Daily, Wang Jingjing notes that Gao favoured vigorous yet delicate brushwork and vivid images. – This is supposed to be in source 8, the Guandong Museum site, but I can't find it there (which might be because I can't really read Chinese, so I'm just checking here).
    • It's cited to [15]. I see that I did misattribute the quote, however. It should be attributed to Li Gongming of the Guangzhou Academy of Arts, as he was the one being interviewed and who mentioned a "vigorous yet elegant" style. Fixed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • But cite [15] is in the middle of a sentence; from my understanding, it would only support that particular part of the sentence, not the preceding sentences? It should be behind the sentence (behind the dot) to imply that it supports multiple sentences? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've always understood citations as supporting all preceding materials in the same paragraph, which is how the ref is used here. Referring to WP:CITETYPE, an in-line citation is "close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote;" it doesn't specify a leapfrog effect. That being said, since there is an attributed statement here, there is definitely an argument to duplicate the reference, which I have done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that is the case, my inline citations are incorrect in all my FAs. What about a case like this: who has been described as his goddaughter[36] or adopted daughter,[9], would cite [36] also support all preceding sentences of the paragraph, even if the sentence would be at the end of the paragraph? I always assumed it would, in such cases, only support this particular fact, since it is provided within the sentence, not at the end of it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, it's been a long day. I meant to say "all preceding materials in the same paragraph up to the previous reference." I certainly did not mean to imply that there were errors in any previous FAs.
            • This is how all of my previous FAs have been written. As an example, the section #Release and reception at Panggilan Darah starts with "Panggilan Darah debuted at the Orion Theatre in Batavia on 30 June 1941. It was reported as a modest success," It cites two references, both of which are used to support the information. The next clause, "making most of its money from lower class audiences." is supported entirely by Biran. Likewise, Jacobus Anthonie Meessen cites everything from "He was one of the few photographers" through "opened a studio" to the same reference. The Encyclopedia of Jakarta reference is used exclusively to support what sort of materials were being sold at Meessen's studio/shop. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • used as settings for animal subjects – dot missing.
  • Otherwise, reads very well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Jens. I believe I have addressed everything.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima review

[edit]

Since it seems you're good on prose supports, I'll do a source review.

  • Publishers are wikilinked inconsistently; the museums have links, but the university presses are not. The same is true for websites, where you wikilink Sina.com but not Grove Art Online.
  • Shouldn't it be just "Urban Council" or "Urban Council of Hong Kong" as the publisher? And see above.
    • The book uses Urban Council, Hong Kong. I've trimmed it to Urban Council for ease.
  • The translated title for Chen 2009 isn't capitalized the same as the others.
  • You give the location for Brill, but none of the other publishers. Again, choose one or the other, but be consistent.
  • For sources without authors, you give the SFN as the name of the work in two instances and the name of the author in the other; I'd cite The Art of Gao Qifeng as "Urban Council Hong Kong 1981" to resolve this.
  • I'm a bit confused why there's shortened footnotes like "Guangdong Museum, Gao Qifeng", "HKHM, The Heavenly Breeze", and "Ou, Gao Qifeng" (the former of which doesn't include a date). Why not just "Guangdong Museum 2017", "HKHM", and "Ou"? It wouldn't be ambiguous.
    • I've changed Guangdong Museum to {{sfn}}. The other two are a vestige from when I write articles with multiple newspaper sources. I can go either way, but I think as long as it's consistent it should be okay.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why no page number on Floriani 2023?

Moving on to the good part: These are good quality sources that seem fitting for the topic and seem to cover it quite well. It's a suitably in-depth article. @Crisco 1492: Just a bunch of stylistic and formatting tweaks and we're golden. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image review & spot-check

[edit]

File:Tomb of Gao Qifeng 2010-11.jpg needs a note about the copyright of the structure (e.g a freedom of panorama note). File:高奇峰 鹿.jpg has a broken bare URL as a source. Image placement and ALT text seem fine.

Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for the spot check. Have the image issues above been resolved to your satisfaction? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check:

  • 4 Can I have a copy of these sources?
  • 6 Seeing only snippets, which endorse most of this save for fourteen being an age.
    • " If he did, the period was brief for by age 14 he was enrolled in a modern Christian school in Canton; not long after, Jianfu brought him to Japan for further art education." (Will be able to see full source when I send it). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 (now 10) Can I have a copy of this source?
    Doesn't mention these artists or "boneless", but maybe it's just the PDF acting up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tanaka Raisho is mentioned in Chu 1998, as is discussion of the nihonga style. Kano and Hashimoto and their link with Nihonga (rendered "New National Schoool") is made explicit in Croizier 2023, p. 48, and thus I have moved the ref. "Boneless" was page 6, but is more explicitly stated by Croizier and Liang; corrected. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 (now 17) Seeing only snippets, which support part of the claim; can I have a copy of this page?
    I don't see the precise dates or issue numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "It ran for seventeen issues between June 1912 and April 1913." This was the Floriani source. "March" is provided by Liang, so I've added "March or April" and added the Liang source to the ref. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 Going by Google Translate: Don't see woodblock and Sun Yat-sen apparently only commented on two of these. Granted, the syntax is apparently being mangled ("Mr. Yu Qifeng specially consulted with Mr. Yu Qifeng" isn't a correct translation, is it? "and the bonds of relatives and friends will be burned" likewise looks suspect)
  • 21 Can I have a copy of this source?
    Apparently it was Jianfu that founded it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Removed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 23 Mostly supported but The Young Companion isn't mentioned on this page.
  • 26 Which source says Zhujiang Nursing Home?
    • DuteNews. Quote is "一九二九年，高奇峰以瘁力绘事过度，积劳成疾，由岭南大学迁到二沙头岛珠江颐养园养病。" (GTranslate may give "Pearl River" nursing home, with Pearl River being Zhujiang. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 29 Again using Google Translate, I am not sure I see this.
  • 32 Seeing only snippets, which support part of the claim; can I have a copy of this page?
  • 35 (now 33) Can I have a copy of this source?
    • I had accessed it via the Internet Archive's "library" functionality, which is being persnickety right now.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I notice that it doesn't explicitly discuss "prestige". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Source says "In some ways it was not quite so tragic as the sudden death of the youngest of the Gao brothers, Jianzeng (sic), seventeen years earlier. Qifeng (who had been suffering from tuberculosis for many years) had still had time to reach maturity and gain fame as an artist." The juxtaposition of the two indicates that Jianseng had not had time to reach maturity and gain fame (paraphrased as prestige here). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 36 OK
  • 39 OK, kinda wonder if the "plagiarism" thing in the source is a bit more negative than how the article frames it.
    • Gu doesn't go into detail, but I wanted to be careful in casting this. One of the Six principles of Chinese painting is "Transmission by copying". Gao Qifeng mentioned them in his lectures, and Croizier (p. 198) writes, "In an ingenious, if forced, reinterpretation of the last of the classic six principles for painting laid down by the Tang dynasty theorist Xie He, Gao [Jianfu] claimed that "to copy ancient masterpieces" originally referred to copying foreign works, i.e., paintings brought from India in the wave of cultural borrowing that accompanied the spread of Buddhism from India to China." The Gao brothers clearly understood, or at least presented an understanding of, traditional Chinese painting principles as allowing the direct imitation of existing works. The Art Institute of Chicago goes into more detail, noting that copying has a long history in Chinese art. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 41 Doesn't mention "idealism" or "beasts"
    • Beasts was my paraphrase for animals, as in "Gao Qifeng’s Autumn Eagle (undated) is typical of the heroic bird-and-animal paintings in which he excelled.". Have recast "idealism" to "romanticism".
  • 42 Google Books doesn't show this quote.
  • 43 Seeing only snippets, which endorse most of this save for the "most influenced brother" part.
  • 44 OK, assuming that Google Translate is correct.
  • 49 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 50 (now 48) Seeing only snippets, which support part of the claim; can I have a copy of this page?
    I can't find riverbank or Taoist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Riverbank was Page 76 ("Pure landscapes, as opposed to a tree and riverbank setting for a bird or figure picture, are relatively rare."). Fixed; somehow p. 102 got inserted there. Taoist is rendered "Daoist" in the source. That being said, I see that this sentence was focused more on Jianfu. I've removed the mention entirely.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the Daoist is on p.102, not p.76. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Daoist has been removed from the article, as the source is focused more on Jianfu in this discussion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck passed - several minor issues (now resolved), not enough to call the unchecked cites into question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Lead

  • give founding of school a year
    • The Lingnan School was more of a movement than a proper school, and thus cannot readily be given a specific year.
  • give a footnote explaining that - due to the brothers often being mentioned, together and individually - that they will be referred to sometimes by first name, and that Gao alone means Qifeng?
    • I think it's implied, as standard practice for articles with people who share names. Furthermore, in writing about Chinese artists, there is a tendency to repeat both names where clarity is needed (viz Croizier, etc.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • his older brother" - unclear at this point that there were more brothers, and that here Jianfu is meant
  • give travel to Tokyo a year

Early ...

  • "One of six brothers": I suggest to be at this point - instead of close to the end - more explicit about other brothers' names and age, especially how much older Jianfu was, and which "number" Qifeng was
    • The sources don't really provide ages for most of the brothers. I have added "ten years his elder" for Jianfu. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
  • I suggest to first mention school, then art specifics
    • In most cases, I'd agree with you. In this case, the sources basically say that he had the techniques, but his attendance at the school cannot be confirmed. As such, the priority is the techniques. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should his art name be mentioned in the lead, bold as a redirect?
  • "Gao Qifeng studied directly"- by footnote suggested above, Gao would be sufficient. (will not mention this all occasions)
  • Ralph Croizier - when a person mentioned has no article, I suggest to give a short explanation about why we should listen to them. Same for other scholars cited later, without extra mentioning.

Artistic ...

Later ...

  • "Before his death, he asked" - "Before his death, he had asked", unless you mention it before his death which may be better
  • "He died on 2 November 1933" - I commonly see the sentence about death being a new paragraph, with the name and also the location, for people who don't read the whole thing. (I come from the - few - composers' articles without infobox, where this is the only way to determine the POD.)
  • perhaps offer the word "legacy" in the section header?
  • I am not sure that the history of road naming is of encyclopedic value
  • A conversion of the government cnntrib to a better-known currency might be of more help
    • Yes and no. I agree that it would be nice to have, but it runs the risk of overfilling the article with numbers. I know SC generally has his currency in footnotes, and that may allow for more detail, but at this point we already have quite a few footnotes. Thoughts, other reviewers? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relation...

  • Together with his brother Jianfu and fellow Ju Lian student Chen Shuren, Gao is recognized - how about "Gao is recognized, together with his brother Jianfu and fellow Ju Lian student Chen Shuren,"?
  • How about mentioning the names of the (later) 7 when the studio is first mentioned? Then we coud see better who is linked and who is not.
  • I think that the wife deserves a new para however short
  • "after he became ill she tended to Gao" - better: "to him", - as clear from the context (or use Gao the first time in this sentence)

Analysis

  • other section headers could be Art, or Work - I don't believe that the value comparisons fit "Analysis"
  • please find a way for the left image not displacing the next section header, - easiest to have it right, others to make it much smaller with less caption, or place in the following section, or combine the two sections
  • the prices fetched might be lead material to give the ignorants (like me) a rough idea
  • "Gao's angry lions and roaring tigers evoke a "bold and unyielding spirit" + "depictions of animals to reflect a revolutionary spirit" - some of that might also be lead material
  • I'd first mention the rare landscapes and figures (now at the very end), and end instead with the quote , on "charms" ;)

General: I miss a link to the commonscat.

Thank you for an interesting life and work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gao_Qifeng/archive1&oldid=1258664996"