Talk:Haystacks (Monet series)

message: Recent copy edit was by me, forgetting to sign in. Work yet to be done on 'Monet background', for I don't believe choice of subject was unimportant. Quite the contrary, writers have noted the nationalistic choices of subjects, upon which Monet focused his studies of light. JNW 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forgot to sign in

message: According to his friend Gustave Geffroy and subsequent writers, the Impressionists gave great and profound thought to their choice of subject matter, and continue to be misperceived as possessing a camera-like objectivity. So, I have deleted the passage on this issue, which I don't think is a true description. Similarly, there is conflicting opinion as to the process of the serial paintings, with much of the confusion caused by Monet's conflicting descriptions of his working methods. What is known is that he often finished his paintings not on site, but in the studio. JNW 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject

message: Last deleted image was of a painting not actually by Monet, nor does the website it came from claim it as an original; it plainly states that its images are other painters' copies of the masters' works. More evidence that we editors must beware when we go to external links, esp. spam. JNW 22:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted image

message: This article lacks a proper lead (summarizing the contents of the article), has a cleanup tag, and lacks citations in the "Thematic Issues" section. As such, it has not reached GA status. Please feel free to resubmit when these issues have been dealt with. MLilburne 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: Hi, I failed this GA nomination mainly on the grounds of grammar and slight under-citation. The whole article's grammar needs tightening up - there are some abiguous sentences and some clumsy wording, some of which I have pointed out below. I also feel several statements really need citation, again this is pointed out below:
*"Haystacks is the title of a series of impressionist paintings by Claude Monet whose primary subjects are stacks of grain" - Monet's primary subjetcs are stacks of grain or the haystack series primary subjects are stacks of grain. Unclear, bad grammar.  TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of October 7, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?:  The article is reasonably well-written prosaically speaking, and complies mostly with the Manual of Style. However there are some structural issues. Some very small sections, combined with large galleries, makes the amount of text seem very thin. Consolidating some of these sections, and removing some of the images, is necessary. Remember that Wikipedia is not an image gallery, and that showing every single haystack image available is not really necessary, especially if some may have no accompanying textual analysis or history. Removing some images may not be necessary if the desired expansion as intimated below is done. The order of the sections is also a bit odd, and the personal background of Monet and the background of the series should not be separated. The paintings galleries also need to be placed in correct chronological order (see further detail later in review).
:2. Factually accurate?:  I'm not sure what previous reviewers told you, but the bare minimum of inline citations is for quotations and one at the end of each paragraph, not each section. However, though not all sections have cites at the literal end of the paragraph, they do have enough in the body to cover all the facts. Still, the 1888-1889 paintings section is completely uncited. This must be remedied.
:3. Broad in coverage?:  This is related to odd feel of the article's layout. The article contains no information on how or if the series' style and content changed over the years. It contains text about the 1888-1889 paintings, but simply has a gallery for the 1890-1891 series and Other paintings. Strangely, many of the other paintings in the last gallery were painted before the 88-89 paintings. To put it simply, for a series of paintings spanning practically a whole decade there must be some kind of proper chronology in both the layout and the encyclopedic text. Otherwise, there isn't enough context and the article is extremely confusing.
:4. Neutral point of view?:  Covers all significant views with fair treatment.
:5. Article stability?  Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.
:6. Images?:  All accounted for with proper licenses.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— VanTucky Talk 22:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (copied from User talk:VanTucky) I am having a problem with your review.  The third sentence of the article says. "The title refers primarily to a twenty-five canvas series (Wildenstein Index Number 1266-1290) begun in the summer of 1890, using that year's grain harvest.".  Then, in section three of your review you say ". . . for a series of paintings spanning practically a whole decade. . ."  Then, I see you asking me to remove many images and have even removed one yourself that I believe are important.  I think the article would optimally have about 35 images in the gallery including all 25 1890 harvest images and all 5 1888 harvest images.  Note the WP:LEAD says "The series is known for its thematic use of repetition to show differences in perception of light across various times of day, seasons, and types of weather."  Remvoing images makes the juxtapposition unclear.  For example, the image you removed is quite important in contrast to the adjacent image.  I think you are missing several point.  I have never done this, but do you think I could request another reviewer?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and go through it all one at a time, let me know if I miss something. First, the chronology thing is me getting my wires crossed, as I did two reviews in very close succession. Please forgive any confusion. As to the removal of the image, I removed the image that was used as the lead. Using one image twice in an article with so many already is foolhardy. Second, I did not hard and fast say that the images must be culled to promote to GA status. Images alone are not a primary pass/fail criteria. But the article is very heavy on images and relatively light on text, it's about images and text. It's not about comparing the actual number of haystack paintings to what is included in the article. I'm speaking solely of the content of the article. There are articles that are three or four times as long about one painting, so surely there is more to say about an entire series by Monet. As to the context and thematic issue, the only substantial comment on this topic is the phrase, "to show nuances of perception as seasons, time of day, and weather changed." This generalization is repeated multiple times in the article, without further detail. This repetition is the symptom of the lack of comprehensiveness I touch on in the review. No, you cannot request another reviewer. You can make a talk page notice on WP:GAN if you like, or file a reassessment once the review has been concluded. But the writers of articles don't get to choose a new reviewer because they didn't like what one reviewer had to say. Second opinion is a tool for reviewers to request assistance. I'm more than happy to try and reach a consensus here together. GA review is not ideally a dictatorial endeavor, and I don't want it to be. But I have reviewed dozens of articles for the criteria without a single reassessment, so I'm not completely unschooled when it comes to knowing what is and is not GA status. VanTucky Talk 21:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per your concerns, I have requested the help of reviewer LaraLove (much more experienced than I). She has done some copy editing and other work, including bringing up some additional issues. The below is space to list these. VanTucky Talk 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for both calling in a second reviewer and for reconsidering the article.  I should say that your statement that "writers of articles don't get to choose a new reviewer because they didn't like what one reviewer had to say" connotes a misunderstanding of my concern.  There were two main issues that indicated to me my article had not been reviewed as scrupulously as I would like.  Your reference to a decade when the series is about one harvest season was alarming.  I don't even know how to tell you how troulbing it is that you seemed to be reviewing something I did not write.  Second, I was concerned because I am not a student of art, but am a fan of the Art Institute of Chicago, which boasts six of these paintings.  Thus, I have been taught that the instructive and educational value of the series or a major part of it is to compare and contrast the thematic element which is nuances in seasons, time of day, and weather captured by differences in percieved light as depicted on the canvas.  I am not sure whether the encyclopedic value to the project is the same thing as the instructive and educational value, but I assume these can not be too far apart.  Thus, I think for a painting series greater representation of the series is beneficial in the article.  I have never considered whether an image should be able to appear in an article in more than one place, but if it can this is the type of article where it   should.  Let's work together over the full seven days to improve this together.  My request for a second reviewer was in no way a contest of who is the BSD between me with my dozens of successful nominations and you with your dozens of reviews.  It was a statement of extreme concern that the person who was reviewing my article was missing two major points that were so important as to be alarming.  I apologize if my procedurally incorrect request for a second reviewer was perceived badly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well I apologize if you felt like your work wasn't being treated with the care it should be. Looks like we have a fresh opportunity to get to work on the article. VanTucky Talk 17:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for posting this summary, VanTucky. So I went through the article, as VT noted, and I must say I agree with his points. The two background sections could be merged as there is some repetition to them. If left separate, I think the last paragraph of "Series background" would serve better as the first paragraph instead. The prose needs to be reworked in places, as noted above, because there are some very repetitive sentences as well as some that are confusing. I agree that the order of the series should be chronological. And, lastly, the details of Monet's changes in lifestyle show that 1,000 francs was good money for the time, but it gives no comparative value to modern times. If possible, it would be great to give somewhat of a modern equivalent. Lara❤Love 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created Wildenstein Index Number and changed the link to this new article.  The term does not really google test that well, but every time I look at a Monet book it seems to be using these numbers.  I hope at some point to have better sources for the new article, but it will suffice for now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been searching the internet for an 1891 French Franc currency conversion to no avail.  I have contacted the Chicago Public Library and they do not have the information either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the 1890 harvest is shown first is that it is the focus of the article.  The 1888 harvest paintings are ancillary to the series and the article.  Therefore they are shown later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  20:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination on hold

message: Several times the article makes reference to Daniel Wildenstein's index. This needs to either be internally disambiguated or referenced in some way, as it is not a good idea to assume that any reader will have a clue what this is about. She also fact tagged a sentence, which without an RS, reads like OR. The first section, Monet background, has no transition and is jarring. Merging the general background section and the Monet one might help. The sentence, "However, some include several additional paintings in when referencing this series." is very confused in grammar. I  take this to mean that there are multiple lists of the particular paintings in the series which don't always agree. The article says that he was paid 1,000 francs for a painting. We need some kind of reference to modern currency here (i.e. translated to current value w/inflation), bc 1,000 of anything is a pile of beans for art. VanTucky Talk 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for posting this summary, VanTucky. So I went through the article, as VT noted, and I must say I agree with his points. The two background sections could be merged as there is some repetition to them. If left separate, I think the last paragraph of "Series background" would serve better as the first paragraph instead. The prose needs to be reworked in places, as noted above, because there are some very repetitive sentences as well as some that are confusing. I agree that the order of the series should be chronological. And, lastly, the details of Monet's changes in lifestyle show that 1,000 francs was good money for the time, but it gives no comparative value to modern times. If possible, it would be great to give somewhat of a modern equivalent. Lara❤Love 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created Wildenstein Index Number and changed the link to this new article.  The term does not really google test that well, but every time I look at a Monet book it seems to be using these numbers.  I hope at some point to have better sources for the new article, but it will suffice for now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been searching the internet for an 1891 French Franc currency conversion to no avail.  I have contacted the Chicago Public Library and they do not have the information either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the 1890 harvest is shown first is that it is the focus of the article.  The 1888 harvest paintings are ancillary to the series and the article.  Therefore they are shown later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  20:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional issues

message: I think you should return to the four x four format, with slightly larger images. I notice that you eliminated a few images and the six in a row seems odd now. I added a few minor edits. Good luck. Modernist 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a low res screen. Even with 4 images at this size, the right hand one is not fully visible. It looks very clunky with 5. Try your screen to 800 x 600 and you'll see what I mean. A lot of people do use this screen resolution. Tyrenius (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery

message: Thanks for working so hard everyone, especially Tony. Congratulations! VanTucky Talk 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed. And thanks for clarifying some points above. Do attempt to address the fact tag as soon as you're able, however. Good work, as always, Tony. Lara❤Love 14:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hold completed, passed GA nomination

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:ClaudeMonet.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Haystacks (Monet series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070822214539/http://www.shelburnemuseum.org/collections/detail.php?id=2 to http://www.shelburnemuseum.org/collections/detail.php?id=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Haystacks (Monet series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027041339/http://geocities.com/skrzydla/ to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If you want to see an accurate and unconfused entry about 'Haystacks [Monet series]' go see French Wikipedia's faultless version, 'Les Meules' ['The Stacks'].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolesi (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting this entry right. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Haystacks (Monet series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071205040316/http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?recview=true&id=34078&coll_keywords=Monet&coll_accession=&coll_name=&coll_artist=&coll_place=&coll_medium=&coll_culture=&coll_classification=&coll_credit=&coll_provenance=&coll_location=&coll_has_images=&coll_on_view=&coll_sort=0&coll_sort_order=0&coll_view=0&coll_package=0&coll_start=41 to http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?recview=true&id=34078&coll_keywords=Monet&coll_accession=&coll_name=&coll_artist=&coll_place=&coll_medium=&coll_culture=&coll_classification=&coll_credit=&coll_provenance=&coll_location=&coll_has_images=&coll_on_view=&coll_sort=0&coll_sort_order=0&coll_view=0&coll_package=0&coll_start=41
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027003450/http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?recview=true&id=32189&coll_keywords=Monet&coll_accession=&coll_name=&coll_artist=&coll_place=&coll_medium=&coll_culture=&coll_classification=&coll_credit=&coll_provenance=&coll_location=&coll_has_images=&coll_on_view=&coll_sort=0&coll_sort_order=0&coll_view=0&coll_package=0&coll_start=21 to http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?recview=true&id=32189&coll_keywords=Monet&coll_accession=&coll_name=&coll_artist=&coll_place=&coll_medium=&coll_culture=&coll_classification=&coll_credit=&coll_provenance=&coll_location=&coll_has_images=&coll_on_view=&coll_sort=0&coll_sort_order=0&coll_view=0&coll_package=0&coll_start=21
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025132118/http://www.artofmonet.com/Galleries/Where_Held_Opening_Page.htm to http://www.artofmonet.com/Galleries/Where_Held_Opening_Page.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070623095644/http://www.hillstead.org/collection/paint_monet.html to http://www.hillstead.org/collection/paint_monet.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194706/http://www.artsmia.org/viewer/detail.php?v=12&id=10436 to http://www.artsmia.org/viewer/detail.php?v=12&id=10436
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009052515/http://www.impressionist-art-gallery.com/monet_haystacks.html to http://www.impressionist-art-gallery.com/monet_haystacks.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070623095644/http://www.hillstead.org/collection/paint_monet.html to http://www.hillstead.org/collection/paint_monet.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified