# Talk:Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl

This review is transcluded from Talk:Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BencherliteTalk 17:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Very interesting stuff.  I'm making some minor copyedits as I go along, but if you think that they don't make it better, feel free to undo them.  Some questions / thoughts:

The article title: the article says that it was called "Symphony in White, No 1" or "The White Girl" - do the sources tend to refer to it in the way that you have, with both elements together? I can get to some of them online, but not all of them. MacDonald in Grove Art Online, for example, uses the compound title, but Spencer in the ODNB doesn't.
There is some discrepancy in the naming, but the NGA uses this form, and I guess they should be considered the authority (which reminds me I should put in an external link to the museum). For this reason, and simply to avoid confusion, I think this is the best form to use.
Would it be worth adding a few words about the Royal Academy and the Salon, so that the reader doesn't have to leave the article to get the sense of why Whistler would want the picture shown there?
Done.
MacDonald in Grove Art Online says Paul Mantz, in the Gazette des Beaux Arts, called it a "Symphonie du blanc" - worth mentioning that it wasn't Whistler's idea initially, at least? (I assume that this isn't Wikipedia's Paul Mantz?!)
Good point, I added that. And no, it wasn't some guy who wasn't born yet:) He doesn't seem to be all that notable, so I simply refer to him as a critic.
Spencer in ODNB says that a private gallery exhibited it under the title The Woman in White, leading to complaints that it didn't resemble Collins's heroine - worth mentioning? If so, do we know which gallery and when?
I added this too, and this must have been the Berners Street Gallery exhibition mentioned earlier in the article.
Do we know when and how the painting was acquired by the National Gallery in Washington, or the chain of ownership before that?
Added a quick summary from the museum home page.
Should the article be added to one or more of the sub-categories of Category:Portraits?
I found only Category:19th-century portraits that seemed relevant.
That's all I can think of for now. Let me know what you think of these points.  Can't see there being too many problems to GA status after that.  I suppose I ought to put an  On hold flag for tradition's sake... BencherliteTalk 18:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for a thorough review and a good copy-edit. Lampman (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent.  It's a clear pass, well done. BencherliteTalk 08:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)