Wikipedia:Peer review/An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump/archive1

An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump

An article on Joseph Wright of Derby's best known painting, I'm think of putting it up as a featured candidate. It's short but I believe it's comprehensive. Any comments gratefully received. Yomangani ^talk 09:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

An enjoyable article on one of my favorite paintings, but I feel that it is lacking some sections. Here are my suggestions.

I was disappointed to see that your major source for the painting itself was a library website. Art historians have written a lot on this painting. Since you have scholarly sources for the other material, I urge you to find scholarly sources for the painting as well. It will help you flesh out the page a bit (see next).
I would suggest that you subdivide the "Painting" section and expand on each subsection. Here are some suggestions:

Description and style - This section would describe the painting in more detail and elaborate on the style of the painting, for example, the girl looking out at the viewer. The structure of the painting would be covered here. Chirascuro would go here as well. Any more information on what artistic traditions the painting was participating in or rebelling against would go well here, I think. It is here that the article is most lacking - a description of the painting's structure and style. Research will go a long way to help you fill in those holes.
Themes - This section would explain some of Derby's symbolism (the classical bit) and his interest in the Industrial Revolution. I would put the cockatoo bit here, for example.
Reception and legacy - This section would explain how the painting was received and who Derby thought he was painting it for. Your last paragraph would work well here. You should also include a history of the painting after the eighteenth century - what happened to it? Who bought it? Where did it go? Etc.

I would reorganize the lead a bit, leading from the general to the specific. For example, I would place this sentence - "Part of a series of candlelit scenes that Wright painted during the 1760s, Air Pump departed from previous painting conventions by depicting a scientific subject in the reverential manner that had previously been reserved for scenes of historical and religious significance" - perhaps second and then go on to describe the painting itself.
The Boyle New Experiments reference needs more citation information in the footnote.
I would delete the "References in other works" section since the list is going to be extensive and these don't seem very connected anyway.
There are some awkwardly worded sentences (nothing terribly serious); I suggest a copyeditor when you have finished revising. It's nice to have another pair of eyes or two looking at the article. Awadewit ^Talk 06:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I think you have a good point about dividing up the "Painting" section, although I'm not sure there is enough material to justify subheadings without it looking choppy: I shall probably adopt the structure without the headings. The reception and legacy section would be fairly thin, as until the mysterious Mr. Tyrell gave it to the National Gallery it is shrouded in obscurity (I was interested in finding the original purchaser, as I thought the inclusion of the full moon might have been included as a tempter for someone from the Lunar Society). The article at the library site is written by the curator of the Wolverhampton Art Gallery, it just happens to be available online there, so I'm not too worried about that. Thanks again for taking the time to look it over. Yomangani ^talk 12:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would do more research so that you have more material for each subsection. Awadewit ^Talk 08:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

qp10qp

Well, it's nice to see that colleague Yomangani has moved on from executions and embowellings to the mere public torture of birds. I never have liked this picture (more of a Stubbs man); but what an interesting and absorbing article (narrative art has fascinated me since the author of a book on the Pre-Raphaelites gave a revelatory lecture-with-slides at my school). The article is well-written and constructed, as always with Yomangani's productions: my main suggestion is that what read in places as subjective judgements might be better attributed to their authors within the text (as opposed to just in the notes). This isn't the old "not-enough-citations" refrain, but a question of ensuring that the article doesn't give the impression, to readers unfamiliar with the referencing principles, of analysing the picture for itself.

A few points (feel free to disregard them, of course):

"Scientific curiosity overcomes concern for the bird."

But does it? The boy and the Erasmus Darwin guy on the left seem to be showing scientific curiosity, but who else? Presumably the Peter Stringfellow geezer in the middle has seen it all before; the chap on the right is arguably averting his eyes; and the others are either indeed showing concern for the bird (the two girls) or preoccupied with something else (the lovers, the father, and the boy at the back). Of course, the point is probably from a source (Solkin?), in which case perhaps its author might be mentioned in-text, so that it does not appear to be a definitive assertion.

As an aside (being worth nothing as original thought), my interpretation of the painting (though Wright would have intended many meanings, as well as a complex narrative) is that it depicts the degradation of science into showmanship and the varied reactions to it of society. The point about scientific unconcern is developed further down the article, but once again there seems to me a contradiction between the idea that the picture represents "the dispassionate detachment of the scientific society" and Wright's, I would suggest deliberate, representation of a set of differentiated reactions. The possibility, mentioned in the article, that the bird may be saved, or that the viewer is invited to save the bird, further disturbs a reading that scientific curiosity overcomes concern for the bird.

"the subjects of the painting show the dispassionate detachment of the scientific society"

Not exactly clear what "the scientific society" means in this context. Most of these viewers aren't overtly part of the scientific society in the sense that the Lunar men, for example, were: so is the point that this painting comments on the attitudes of the society of the industrial revolution overall? My own sense would be that Britain at this point was still not really a scientific society as a whole, which is why this experiment was still pulling them in; wouldn't a truly scientific society have considered that it rather proved the obvious? Might not this picture just as well show how little the general public still understood of science at this time?

"...the chaotic experiment contrasting with the orderly scene from The Orrery"

It doesn't look chaotic to me, but highly controlled. Again, this is probably a judgement from a source and might best be framed as such in the text.

"Wright's Air Pump was unusual, in that it depicted archetypes rather than specific people. The young lovers are thought to be based on Thomas Coltman and Mary Barlow..."

Having stated that the picture doesn't depict specific people, the article goes on to list the specific people it might have been based on.

"natural philosopher"/"Experiment 41"/"Lunar Society"

Although there is a link for "natural philosopher" later in the article, it might be worth a phrase of explanation at first introduction (I had to look it up, to see what it might mean in this context). Another detail that struck me as needing a phrase of explanation was "Experiment 41" (although the experiment is described, I was left unclear as to the format of Boyle's experiments; how many there were, for example, and where this particular one fits into the scheme or context of his work or publications; the reference "Robert Boyle (1660). New Experiments" strikes me as a bit bald—from what publication or source did you take the quote?). The same for the Lunar Society: though I have heard of it, some readers might require a phrase explaining what it was.

"...James Shuttleworth, his Wife and Daughter acknowledged as his first masterpiece."/"The first of his masterpieces, Three Persons Viewing the Gladiator by Candlelight..."

So which was it?

Descending to the microscopic level, the Uglow book lacks a publication date. I found numerous other editions, but that particular ISBN took me up a few blind alleys, so I can't add a date for the edition you used myself.

Anyway, congratulations on another fine article. qp10qp 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over. Most of the above look to be failures on my part to fully explain the various points. I'll expand those during the week, and put some attributions inline as you suggest (and in attempt to avoid torture and eath I'll try Carebears or the Andrex puppy next). Yomangani ^talk 22:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a great article? What makes this article credible--Angel10302022 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]