# Talk:The Icebergs

commons:File:The_Icebergs_(Frederic_Edwin_Church).jpg says the artwork was displayed at the Smithsonian and Metropolitan Museum of Art. Should this be mentioned in the article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Outriggr: Pinging, just in case. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Another Believer:. No, we have never recorded temporary locations of artworks in articles about them--unless there was something significant about the location that is covered by a secondary source. I would even remove that from the commons description as I don't believe it's relevant there. Now I will go to my talk page to answer your other question...! Outriggr (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Icebergs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 22:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Reception

Thus the promotional methods that Church had adopted for his earlier "Great Pictures" were less successful with The Icebergs. — This feels a bit odd for a concluding sentence. It also seems to run counter to what was said earlier in the section, i.e., that the Civil War—something completely out of Church's control—got in the way.
Exhibition and purchase in London

Church renamed it The Icebergs — Is the reason why known?
The canvas was well-received in London. — Any excerpts from contemporary reviews?
The Icebergs was purchased by Edward Watkin — Is the price known?
Answered (not known) and added probable asking price. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Outriggr, initial comments are above. What I've read so far (about half) looks good. I'll continue this in the next day or two. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I apologize, but ever since I listed this for GAN, I meant to remove it from GAN shortly after, but forgot. (Some of these concerns are things I meant to address first, thus why I wanted to delay the listing--such as who Hayes is and thus how/when he named a peak for Church.) I am not interested in this process, though I will address the comments you've left. Thanks for that! Outriggr (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Outriggr, any reason you don't want to finish the process? The article is in good shape overall; the two things you mention as in want of expansion ("who Hayes is and thus how/when he named a peak for Church") are interesting and deserving of mention, but ultimately tangential to the article. The first should be most fully covered in the Isaac Israel Hayes article, and the second in the Frederic Edwin Church article. (Information about the studies is the greatest thing, so far, I think the article is missing.) But for want of a little attention, there is no reason this article should not do well on review. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that I put it at GAN without reviewing it as a whole, thinking I would do so "sometime" before a reviewer showed up. Didn't happen! I've been debating this, and though I could go either way, I think I would prefer to get back to some of it on my own time. Again, I'm sorry for mis-using your time, though the comments are certainly still useful and will be used. Outriggr (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
As a follow-up, can you keep this open for a few days. I'll be away, and if it's close I can imagine responding to comments after that. Regards, Outriggr (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Outriggr, I'll give comments for the entire article in either case (might need a couple days myself to finish up), and then leave you a reasonable time to respond. No worries if you're away or need some time. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Usernameunique, I'll take any prepared or other comments you have, but I would like to close this. Fail away. Outriggr (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Outriggr, I'll finish up on Saturday; working against a deadline right now. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Outriggr, it looks good, and is in better shape than I think you give it credit for. All my comments are now above. I think the article could stand a short standalone section on other versions, discussing both the preceding studies and the following related works (currently discussed in "As artistic influence"). It would be nice to know what other versions exist, and their sales history (if any). It's ultimately a tangential issue, however; if you address what's above, that should be sufficient to pass here. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Having started the Rose Hill article, I've an interest in this and I'd certainly agree with Usernameunique. You've a very decent article here which, with just a bit of work, could easily make GA. Your call, obviously, but I think it would be a shame for it to languish. KJP1 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Outriggr, I've found many of the sources online, and so dealt with myself most of the issues identified above. Those sections where all is resolved have been collapsed, with the few outstanding issues left obvious. I see you're both semi-retired and self-blocked, but were active yesterday; any interest in finishing up the final issues? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Outriggr, I've passed the article. Most of the outstanding issues I've been able to address myself, helped by the fact that many of the sources are available online. Those that have not been addressed are not worth holding up the review over, but are listed above should you decide to revisit at some point. The breadth in which some of these sources treat The Icebergs make clear that there are places in which the article could be expanded, should you wish to do so at some point—e.g., in order to bring it up to featured status—but the fact remains that as it stands, it is a good article. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)