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 00:08, 6 February 2008.

Robert Peake the Elder[edit]

Nominator: User: Qp10qp

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured status because I believe it is comprehensive and unusual. There is little known about Peake (in fact I hadn't heard of him till I added the sad and beautiful "Elizabeth of Bohemia with piled barnet" portrait to the Anne of Denmark article). Until December, Wikipedia didn't have an article on Peake. I accidentally found some original scholarship about him in a book on Nicholas Hilliard and Isaac Oliver by Mary Edmond, and it struck me that her findings about Peake's life have never been put together with the scholarship on Peake's art by Roy Strong. Karen Hearn mentions Edmond but goes no further in her useful notes on a few of Peake's paintings. So this article, without resorting to original research, is, I suspect, unique (it doesn't have an equivalent online or in print and the only other place to find this group of pictures together is, thanks to PKM, on our Commons).

I haven't put the article up for Peer Review because User: PKM, User: Amandajm, and User: Johnbod have been joining in, which is a peer review in itself. PKM has done inspiring work in finding and assessing paintings (if anyone wants to know how an image should be titled, sourced, and described, have a look at how PKM does it). Compiling a set of Peake pictures is not at all straightforward: we have been up against the fact that one secondary source does not know what the next is doing, and a degree of confusion and fuzziness that probably results from the low importance given by galleries to such pictures as these. (Amandajm has made some clever deductions to work out that what was described as one painting was in fact two: the talk page is fun, if you get the chance to glance at it). Who knew there was was this other little English painter in there among all those Netherlanders, producing what (I think) will one day emerge as a substantial body of work? Not me. qp10qp (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and agreed - PKM (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And done. qp10qp (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She is sometimes called Elizabeth Stuart, but I have simplified it to "Princess Elizabeth". qp10qp (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask the editor who added this material, but it's discursive for my liking and so I have cut it. qp10qp (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever! It is hardly OR, and unlikely to be challenged, as a fairly basic point. A glance at the Larkin Commons Gallery Gallery ought to settle the matter for anyone not familiar with the subject. Johnbod (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John, I didn't mean you! The original sentence was added without refs by someone else, and, though it is fairly unexceptionable, it was synthesising the point with Peake in a way that requires cites. If I see supporting material, I'll add it back in (and your Larkin note), but I'm not going to go looking for it. By the way, many thanks to you for helping so much with these queries. It is very much appreciated! qp10qp (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think (and I'm open to being convinced otherwise) that the gallery should stay. Generally, the number of images would be overkill if they were merely illustrative. But this is an article about art. The images are content themselves - the reader/viewer learns more about the subject from them. Can you tell me why the reader would be better off without them?--Docg 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might well withdraw my support if the gallery goes! See talk on this; I won't get myself started. It is an article on a painter, and each picture is worth 1,000 words in my view. This collection is itself encyclopedic. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree that an article about an artist should have images of his/her work for completeness, but I think it needs contain a representative sample and not aim for completeness (I use that word for lack of a better one; I know that completeness is not possible nor is it likely your aim). I know a little about art but not a lot, and for me as a reader I want to know the context of the pictures that are shown—why are they important examples of his work? What's different about them? This article does an excellent job of putting the pictures that are embedded in the text in context (as well as the the gallery pictures of Charles I & the hunting one with Robert Devereaux). The other pictures in the gallery, however, give only a brief historical context of the subject; their inclusion offers me as an unknowledgable reader nothing except a chance to say "oooo, pretty" (and I did do that). Rather than dilute the impact of the other pictures, I'd prefer to just remove those that don't offer the article much.
I know that other articles, such as FA Texas A&M University, have galleries set up at the Commons, and link to that from the article. Would that be an acceptable compromise—keep the 2 in the gallery that are mentioned in the article, and then move the rest to the Commons so that they are available to those with additional interest? Karanacs (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly all articles on painters, like this one, have Commons galleries (Peake's now has 21 files). They are not the same thing at all, don't have caption info (now much expanded here), and are not under the control of English WP - not a big issue here, but most Commons galleries on famous painters are very raw data indeed - full of mis-attributed/titled/described pictures, unsorted, with hopeless descriptions - look at the Commons pages for Rubens, Raphael etc etc. Most art books have as many pictures as the publishers can afford, which fortunately is not an issue for WP. Allowing for detail images, there are only 14 paintings shown, which can hardly be called excessive. It is right at the end of the article - you don't have to read it. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the picture rights cost - often a significant constraint on paper publishers. Text is much cheaper per page. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: I checked the list of current FAs. Sadly, there are very few FAs of painters, but of the two famous ones that I saw (El Greco and Salvador Dali), neither included a gallery in the article, only pictures incorporated into the text. My biggest problem with the gallery is that there is no context to the images included (except for the two mentioned in the article). What makes those paintings representative of his work (why choose those vs others he painted)? What makes those different from the ones that are detailed in the text? Karanacs (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick interjection - both those FAs have 15 pictures in the text; this has 17 in total. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you. Peake is an unusual painter in that the paintings themselves are the strongest source of information on him, the amount of scholarship being very small and unfocussed. If we are to give the reader an account of Peake's development, we have to show the pictures included in the gallery, for most of which there exists no scholarship other than their gallery notes.
Why these pictures? The pictures in the gallery chart Peake's work chronologically; in addition, they show the way he repeated figures from patterns (with significant changes) and the fact that he painted non-royal subjects too. On the latter point, it is inevitable that since Peake painted the royal children, those paintings have been the ones noticed by writers. However, little has been written about his non-royal work, for which the pictures themselves are the chief information. The gallery addresses this and rounds out the picture of Peake's work. It also illustrates, for example (as in the case of the Knollys portrait, issues of dating and attribution raised in the text). The portrait of the young Elizabeth is there as evidence that it may be a companion piece to the 1603 double portrait: it is hoped that the interested reader will check its background against both double portraits, as the matter is mentioned in the text. The provision of the second double portrait is essential for the light it sheds on Peake's practice of reworking a composition. The eagle-eyed may also be concerned to note that this Elizabeth portrait is tonally more similar to the 1605 Devereux version of the double portrait than to the Harington one of 1603 (this is one of several places in the article where the paintings themselves may appear to contradict the scholarship quoted: in a sense they are required as counterbalances—or at least, supplements—to the referenced text). A more straightforward example of the use of types (or patterns) is provided by the Charles in Garter portrait: this is intended to balance the comments of Sheeran and Hearn that treat the Cambridge portrait (which was actually a later version of the Garter type) as if it represented a singular stylistic moment. The unknown man is a great oddity that when looked into may also raise issues that contradict aspects of the text. The pictures of Anne Pope and Elizabeth Poulett show how Peake's art had developed from the time of the Knollys portrait of 1582. I have seen no scholarship on this development (apart from that concerning the Cambridge portrait of Charles), so it can only be shown to the reader visually. Those two paintings are also examples of the rich late visual style addressed in the Elizabeth Pope section, which would otherwise seem isolated from the material about royal portraits which by necessity takes up most of the article.
I do not believe that all articles on artists should have a gallery, but galleries seem to me useful for the obscurer artists of this period, who are possibly more interesting for the invaluable documentary and cultural information they provide than for their creative individuality. I see these paintings as facts that contribute to the informational value of the article. qp10qp (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's bordering on an original research argument—we think that the pictures dispute the scholarship, so we're going to include them for that reason? I really think that the number of pictures for an article this size is overwhelming to most readers.

Maybe this will help though. In reading WP:GALLERIES, it recommends that A short introduction to a gallery is expected. Do not just dump the thumbs on the reader; explain in some detail why they are grouped together. Perhaps if you can include a brief description, thus adding context, before the list of pictures it might help. Karanacs (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't dumped, as I am sure you are beginning to realise: precisely the opposite, I promise. So long as we don't make authorial comments, it is not original research to include these pictures, even if the notes from their galleries contain information that contradicts or lends a slant to the information referenced to the scholars. The issue of original research is complicated with pictures, which, from an informational point of view, are umbilically tied to their description at their home galleries (unless published scholars have challenged those descriptions). It would not be possible to add a picture to the page for which we have no information; but we have added paintings for which there is information at the galleries, so there is no original research. (The standard of scholarship at the galleries is another question; but we are in no position to dismiss their attributions: that would be original research.)
On the question of an introduction to the gallery, my first instinct is that it's not necessary, since each picture has a full caption. But as you are quoting a guideline, it looks like I will have to do it. qp10qp (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. qp10qp (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am far from sure that any actual guideline covers this. There is one covering the now extremely rare articles-that-are-just-galleries, which I think is what is being referred to but nothing I am aware of covering galleries in articles. Confusion between the two is common among Wiki iconoclastss. Does someone have the working link? Karanacs, I think you just have to accept there is a large concensus here to keep the gallery. Personally I gon't think the Intro adds anything - the captions say all that needs saying. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose on the grounds of the gallery as there is no official policy or guideline on it, but I find it telling that three veteran FA reviewers/writers (me, Giano, and SandyGeorgia) really dislike the galleries in FA articles. Images are wonderful additions to articles, as long as they are placed in context, and galleries don't provide that opportunity. (And I saw a comment earlier but can't find it on the number of pictures in the other articles - yes, there is a similar number of pictures; the difference is that the other articles are at least twice as long as this one, meaning there was more opportunity to put the images in context and embed them in the article.) As it appears neither of us can see the other's viewpoint, I see little benefit in continuing the discussion. Karanacs (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, although I think you are rather overstating the amount of reference in the text to pictures in text sections, in FAs or any articles. I think we all know that if there was more known about Peake, all these pics would have been fitted in the longer text sections, and we would not have had any complaints about being "overwhelmed"! Have you seen Giano's latest FA - Queluz National Palace? - some would say that has mini-galleries. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs, I have now read Wikipedia:Galleries, and it is about whole-page galleries. So I think I can safely remove the gallery introduction without offending any guideline. qp10qp (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it was also a proposal that was rejected ages ago, but someone had removed the tag (now restored). Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peake was the only English-born painter of a group of four whose workshops were closely connected." - only English-born, or only painter? "group of four whose" leaves the distinguishing factor indeterminate.
Changed. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Lincolnshire, please - there's no link even to England.
Linked. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was apprenticed three years after the miniaturist Nicholas Hilliard to the Goldsmiths’ Company in London" - this imparts no information. when, please?
Joined the two sentences together, so that the date is in the same sentence as this. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A signed portrait of 1593" - from 1593.
OK. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I would say "of" is more correct, and the normal usage in academic art history - "from" sounds rather journalistic to me. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Serjeant-Painter to the king" - I think this is a case where either both or neither should be capitalized.
One can never get full consistency on this: I've now decapitalised serjeant-painter throughout. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholars have deduced from Peake’s known payments" - payments to me are debits, not earnings.
OK. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His will was made on October 10, 1619 and proved on the 16th" - what does proved mean, in the context of a will?
I've now provided a link to probate but don't want to make a meal of this, which was the way it was put in the source. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some paintings, however, have been attributed to Peake from analysis of the characteristic method of inscribing the year and the sitter's age on his documented portrait of a "military commander" (1592), which reads: "M.BY.RO.| PEAKE" ("made by Robert Peake")." - some paintings have been attributed to Peake [based on correlation/parallel/something to] analysis of the...
Changed. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making her look much younger and more triumphant than she was" - how does one look more triumphant than one is?
By being paraded through the streets on a chariot in evocation of the Roman emperors (see Strong Gloriana and The Cult of Elizabeth) when one's armies are being humiliatingly defeated time after time on the continent. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more clear. What I was getting at is that it's a matter of placing her in a triumphant setting, isn't it? Perhaps that's an unnecessary distinction, but I stumbled over it. Maralia (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robert Peake was one of the earliest English painters to explore another form of full-length portrait that became fashionable in England, the individual or group portrait with active figures placed in a natural landscape" - prefer colon to comma here.
Not me. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The action is natural to the setting, a fenced deer-park, with a castle and town in the distance" - second comma is unnecessary.
Changed. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reason Prince Henry regularly commissioned portraits from Peake was to send them to the various foreign courts with which marriage negotiations were underway." - 'The reason...was' is weak prose.
OK. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the link. Not sure what this refers to. PKM? qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed to me that America should be linked somewhere, but I admit I didn't go back and check the link. The Jacobean idea of a personification of America isn't exacly like anything we have. Okay unlinked I think. - PKM (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dashes in reference page numbers need to be converted to endashes.
Five got through. Changed. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all relatively minor issues—this is the first FAC I've reviewed in days where I found essentially no issues from a strictly copyediting standpoint. It's a nice change! Thanks for a good read. Maralia (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for reading the article so carefully. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as the bulk of my concerns have been addressed. For the record, I explicitly support the gallery's inclusion. Maralia (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is wonderful article on a previously obscure painter. It is well-researched, well-written, and well-illutrated. My concerns can quickly be remedied.

Done , & link changed. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped one, per Waterhouse. qp10qp (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about this? "Between 1590 and about 1625, they specialised in brilliantly coloured, full-length "costume pieces" that are unique to England at this time.<ref|>"There is nothing like them in contemporary European painting". Waterhouse, Painting in Britain, 41.</ref|> qp10qp (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Should "brilliantly-coloured" be hyphenated? Is that a compound adjective there? Awadewit | talk 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliantly is just an adverb. qp10qp (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. But isn't it necessary? You can't take it out, right? Isn't that why the hyphen is necessary? Awadewit | talk 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brought Strong into it. qp10qp (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped the sentence and adjusted the next one slightly, to compensate. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reversed the sentence structure. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend not to do that if there are no miscues; but I've added them anyway. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that I can see, after a good look. Very unfashionable .... Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the Herring and Stubbs articles, but nothing. Should we make a red link, do you think? qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. It's a whole genre - it should have an article, like portrait painting. Awadewit | talk 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped it altogether. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You only did a double major? How lazy. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source note to the unknown man. Knollys has an in-text lead to the Berger Collection. The others have notes or are covered in notes elsewhere in the text . . . except Frances Walsingham (so this was a worthwhile exercise and I'll bring her up on the Talk page). qp10qp (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if someone looks only at the gallery? Since we can easily copy notes with the "ref name" feature, I wonder if it wouldn't be useful to do that here. Just an idea. Awadewit | talk 22:49, 1 February 2008
  • There are several journal articles missing page numbers.
Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haigh, Christopher. Elizabeth I. London: Pearson Longman, (1988) 1999 - I don't understand the dates in this reference - there are several like this - is it supposed to mean the original publication date? If so, it should be placed before the publication location with a period after it.
I've cut them out now, but this always makes me nervous because the original date of art research and attributions is so crucial in sequencing the evolution of scholarship. I've got the Strong books in quite recent editions by a different publisher from his original one. I must need something to worry about, but I feel cheated when it turns out that a reference didn't give me the original publication date. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you cut them out? You could just place them in the correct location. Awadewit | talk 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kitson, Michael. British Painting, 1600–1800. National Gallery of Victoria, 1977 - Publication location?
Melbourne. Ha, ha! This is my favourite ref in the article! Amanda just happened to have seen the Devereux version of the double portrait at Melbourne in 1977 and fished out the catalogue. Kitson's comments set us off on a chain of domino-like revelations about that picture and its twin. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure to read this article. Awadewit | talk 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Now I know what it's like for you assembling articles out of fragmentary information and scholarship. Many thanks for the review.qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what reference style is the bibliography supposed to be in? I tried to fix it up so that it was consistent, but someone starting reverting my changes, so I just gave up on that. It would be nice if the "Bibliography" were consistently in MLA, Chicago, APA, or some recognizable style. I am becoming depressingly familiar with these styles, unfortunately, as I enter the wonderful world of academic publishing and I can't quite see one here. Awadewit | talk 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it wasn't me that was reverting you: I have been editing away without really noticing what else was happening. I go by Turabian, 7th ed. For example, they do the "edited by" thing, rather than the "Eds". And for "in", they have a full stop and then "In", with a capital.

For example:

qp10qp (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok. I have gone through all of the citations and adjusted them for Turabian (the student's Chicago!). I also added a hidden note so that other editors will know what style is being used. I find that helps. Awadewit | talk 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I got the Turabian when my Chicago needed renewing, because it was much cheaper and so nicely set out. Over the weekend, I decided to collect some templates to cover all my needs, but as before, I found them anti-Chicago and was thwarted (and annoyed). I'm emotionally a Chicagoan, and when it's up to me to decide a style, I revert to that. But I think my first-publication-date idiosyncrasy must have crept in as a bastard of Harvardism. qp10qp (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the second portrait of Princess Elizabeth used to illustrate a section that discusses the first portrait? And why is the second portrait not mentioned in the text at all?
There used to be a nod to the older portrait in the text and this reminds me that I intended to reinstate part of it. I think the first portrait goes well in the gallery with the double portrait to which it may be connected. The portrait of the older Elizabeth used to be in the lead, but there have been various changes to image position that I didn't envisage when constructing the text and image relationship. For me, the portrait with the dark background is Peake's masterpiece, but it doesn't work so well at a smaller size. Unfortunately, I cannot find a word of scholarship about that picture to place alongside it. Perhaps I could say something about her: she's very interesting. qp10qp (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the titles of the pictures not italicized consistently?
For a number of reasons. Some of the paintings don't seem to have a regular title, and where some have been taken from books it is not clear whether the caption was a descriptive one by the writer or an actual title. One also doesn't know what to do when a scholar gives a different title to the gallery. Strong happily calls the procession picture (which seems to be what it is "now known as", rather than its title, hence the quote marks), Eliza triumphans, but I don't know on what authority. The New York Metropolitan gives a frankly ludicrous title to the Harington double portrait, and one which makes captioning awkward. We do have an agreed title for the equestrian portrait, which has been used. On the whole, to be on the safe side, the article's captions give a descriptiion of the picture rather than wade into the murky waters of "titles". However, point taken, and I'll trawl back through the books and galleries to see if there's any way to rationalise this. qp10qp (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to see the three pictures of Henry together, though it's probably difficult to arrange. Yomanganitalk 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They used to be. I don't like to interfere too much with the decisions of other editors (it's all a matter of judgement, I suppose), but I'll have another think about that. Many thanks for your review and thorough copy edit. qp10qp (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added NPG & MMA external links. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind; checked it myself, and it links fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More