Talk:Equestrian Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki
![]() | Equestrian Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 13, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Equestrian Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 June 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
File:Jacques-Louis David - Equestrian portrait of Stanisław Kostka Potocki - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon
editHello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jacques-Louis David - Equestrian portrait of Stanisław Kostka Potocki - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 12, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-03-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 10:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll have a look at this one. Will start today; should be ready with comments either later on or in a few days. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- A few initial comments made: more to follow. It reads well and I'm impressed with the level of scholarship. Several of the points below are, at least individually, above the strict requirements of GA, so please do come back with any questions or if you think I've misunderstood things. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've now completed my first pass. Again, it's a good, interesting and scholarly article, and does a good job of taking a non-specialist reader through some quite technical material. There are various comments below of varying importance: the article cannot pass until the image licensing and sourcing concerns are resolved, and I'd like to see a critical mass of the prose, clarity and MOS points addressed before I'm comfortable passing under criterion 1. Again, please do ask or quibble if you feel I've been unclear or unfair. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist Thank you for taking this on! Your comments are very helpful and thoughtful. I appreciate your thoroughness and am looking forward to addressing these, hopefully later today. Ppt91talk 13:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ppt91: a small thing, but it's much easier to read (and notice) your replies if you make them a separate bullet point, like this:
* Question (me)
** Answer (you)
UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)- @UndercoverClassicist Just saw this. Will do moving forward! Ppt91talk 18:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Almost there! Image licensing is nearly there, but needs a few things sorted; there's a couple of minor prose, style and layout matters that I'm happy for you to take your time over, and then some last referencing bits which will partly depend on how you choose to resolve those. It's nice to see the article coming together so quickly. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist I hope to have everything else addressed by tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Ppt91talk 01:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- No problem, take your time. I've deliberately held off moving to the formal GAR (and therefore forcing a choice between pass/fail/7 day hold) on the assumption that you'll be checking in; my sense is that, assuming all of the points below can be addressed (since they fall into NPOV and verifiability, they are materially important to the GAR), we'll be good to go. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist Thanks, I appreciate it. Things have turned out to be unexpectedly busy IRL this week, so might need to ask for a bit more patience on your end. I will ping you as soon as everything is ready. Ppt91talk 23:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Ppt91: I don't mean to rush you, but how are things looking on your end? I don't think there's a whole lot left to do here: two bits of phrasing to sort out for WP:NPOV and then one spot check. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am sorry I've been so delayed, but hope to finally get to it tomorrow. Thank you for following up and I appreciate your patience! Ppt91talk 03:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist I think now all should be addressed. Let me know and thanks again for your very thorough review. I really appreciate it! Ppt91talk 20:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am sorry I've been so delayed, but hope to finally get to it tomorrow. Thank you for following up and I appreciate your patience! Ppt91talk 03:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Ppt91: I don't mean to rush you, but how are things looking on your end? I don't think there's a whole lot left to do here: two bits of phrasing to sort out for WP:NPOV and then one spot check. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist Thanks, I appreciate it. Things have turned out to be unexpectedly busy IRL this week, so might need to ask for a bit more patience on your end. I will ping you as soon as everything is ready. Ppt91talk 23:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- No problem, take your time. I've deliberately held off moving to the formal GAR (and therefore forcing a choice between pass/fail/7 day hold) on the assumption that you'll be checking in; my sense is that, assuming all of the points below can be addressed (since they fall into NPOV and verifiability, they are materially important to the GAR), we'll be good to go. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Passes with flying colours. Congratulations: a really impressive piece of work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist I hope to have everything else addressed by tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Ppt91talk 01:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist Thank you for taking this on! Your comments are very helpful and thoughtful. I appreciate your thoroughness and am looking forward to addressing these, hopefully later today. Ppt91talk 13:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've now completed my first pass. Again, it's a good, interesting and scholarly article, and does a good job of taking a non-specialist reader through some quite technical material. There are various comments below of varying importance: the article cannot pass until the image licensing and sourcing concerns are resolved, and I'd like to see a critical mass of the prose, clarity and MOS points addressed before I'm comfortable passing under criterion 1. Again, please do ask or quibble if you feel I've been unclear or unfair. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
Generaledit
Leadedit
Historical contextedit
Commissionedit
Analysisedit
Reception and ownershipedit
Galleryedit
Notes and referencesedit
To explain a little about what I mean: the 'easy' way to do this is as follows:
Image licensingedit
UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Source checkseditThese checks refer to this version of the article:
|
General
edit- As the article uses a lot of references, I think a bibliography section would be helpful. There's no requirement for one under GA criteria, but it would make it a lot easier for the reader to get their head around the foundations on which the article is based.
- Comment: It's a good idea and I'll put it on my to-do list, but I want to address the more pressing issues you raised first.
- That's very wise, and I'm fully behind that as a priority order. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: It's a good idea and I'll put it on my to-do list, but I want to address the more pressing issues you raised first.
- While not a strict requirement, it's good for accessibility if images have alt text, so that those with visual impairments can engage with them.
- Comment: This is a good point and something I'll also get to when other criteria-related comments are taken care of. Ppt91talk 17:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Lead
edit- I'm uneasy at the distinction drawn between plundered by Nazi German forces and falling into the hands of the Soviets: you'll know more about the circumstances than me, but my intuition is that we're talking about more-or-less the same thing in both occasions - the forcible taking of a work of art by an invading/'liberating' force in the immediate aftermath of conflict. My immediate comparandum is the Treasure of Priam, which gets pulled out of one of Berlin's flak-towers in 1945 and promptly hidden in a basement in Moscow for the next half a century. What does the evidence allow us to say about how David's work ended up in the 'main' Soviet Union? Incidentally, do we know anything about where this painting was between 1945 and 1956?
- This is also relevant to the 'Reception and ownership' section.
- As for the phrasing specifically, "falling into the hands of the Soviets" is quite accurate because all we know is that the painting was taken by the Soviets from Germany and later repatriated when Poland had already become a Soviet satellite state. That's clearly stated in "Reception and ownership" section. Unfortunately, that is as far as my sources go. I imagine there will be more research on the provenance during the Stalinist period in the future, but these things are notoriously difficult to track due to missing museum records and historical data. I'd certainly love to talk about it more--especially that 1945-1956 happens to be the period I cover in my dissertation and I have a lot of thoughts about Stalin's cultural imperialism--but pretty much anything beyond what I just said would be WP:OR. Ppt91talk 22:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Do you have a quotation to hand? As the phrasing has worked out to be not-entirely-neutral (and I appreciate how weird/wrong it sounds to be arguing for even-handedness in how we treat Nazis and Soviets), it might be good to couch the "falling into the hands of..." in a secondary source's voice (at least in the body text), which would make clear that the bias is an artefact of the sources, not of our own editorial bias (and so *not* OR). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- I just looked at the exact wording in Rzeczpospolita and the literal translation would be "ended up in the Soviet Union"--would you like me to use that instead? And just to be clear, the Soviet Union was obviously as much of an invader as Nazi Germany, though in the context of post-war cultural repatriation during the Stalinist period, this kind of phrasing isn't as problematic as it might seem at first. Ppt91talk 22:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd distance Wikipedia's voice from the framing a little: something like
Between 1939 and 1956, the timeline of the painting's whereabouts is unclear: in the words of Schnapper, it "ended up" (Polish: Schnapper's exact word) in the Soviet Union.
That way, we don't have to go into OR by framing things more specifically, but it's also clear to the reader where the decision to frame things like that was made.
- I'd distance Wikipedia's voice from the framing a little: something like
- I just looked at the exact wording in Rzeczpospolita and the literal translation would be "ended up in the Soviet Union"--would you like me to use that instead? And just to be clear, the Soviet Union was obviously as much of an invader as Nazi Germany, though in the context of post-war cultural repatriation during the Stalinist period, this kind of phrasing isn't as problematic as it might seem at first. Ppt91talk 22:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is also relevant to the 'Reception and ownership' section.
- To be clear, my issue is that falling into the hands is not a WP:NPOV statement that the painting ended up in the USSR by unknown means; it's at least very close to loaded language (WP:WEASELWORDS) in that it gives the agency to the painting, thereby implicitly exculpating the act of its removal. That's an editorial moral judgement: given that we don't have a source as to anything about its taking, it's WP:OR to imply that it was legitimate. Compare for instance The Parthenon sculptures fell into the hands of the British Museum, which is the sort of thing that's regularly called out as whitewashing. Again, to be clear, I'm talking about the full explanation in the body text here; it's perfectly fine for the lead to use "ended up in the USSR" without explanation, though you could footnote
See [[#Section header]] below
.
- To be clear, my issue is that falling into the hands is not a WP:NPOV statement that the painting ended up in the USSR by unknown means; it's at least very close to loaded language (WP:WEASELWORDS) in that it gives the agency to the painting, thereby implicitly exculpating the act of its removal. That's an editorial moral judgement: given that we don't have a source as to anything about its taking, it's WP:OR to imply that it was legitimate. Compare for instance The Parthenon sculptures fell into the hands of the British Museum, which is the sort of thing that's regularly called out as whitewashing. Again, to be clear, I'm talking about the full explanation in the body text here; it's perfectly fine for the lead to use "ended up in the USSR" without explanation, though you could footnote
- I'd be interested to hear more about
in the context of post-war cultural repatriation during the Stalinist period, this kind of phrasing isn't as problematic as it might seem at first
, though purely for personal interest rather than the GA. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)- @UndercoverClassicist Ok, thanks again for your patience. I've been completely preoccupied with teaching and a whole lot of end-of-the-semester commitments, though another reason behind my delay was an ILL order which I had hoped would clarify some of the issues raised in this section, i.e. the chronicle of exhibition history at the National Museum in Warsaw. I knew the portrait had been brought back to Warsaw by 1956 and that there was an exhibition titled "From Cezanne to David" organized at MNW that year; it was an impressive display, including Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People and numerous other works from the Louvre which I imagine would be virtually impossible to loan today. Alas, I could not find Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki listed among the works on view (it is likely it was exhibited, though the entry in the book I borrowed is relatively short), which would have helped me tremendously in the context of this article.
- The dearth of sources is the real issue here, resulting in incomplete records and making it hard for us to give any more context. I think the best course of action will be to quote directly from the Rzeczpospolita article (it is a newspaper of record, after all) though only include "ended up" in. The closest we have to a description of what happened between 1939 and 1956 is
During the Nazi occupation, the painting was taken to Germany, then along with other war spoils, it ended up in the Soviet Union, where, after wandering, it returned to Poland in 1956, first to the National Museum in Warsaw.
. The idiomatic use of "wandering" doesn't make sense in English and if we were to use the entire quote, then it would only further the confusion. - As for the broader context of "repatriation", it's an extraordinarily complicated topic, but to give a rather crude analogy: the legitimacy of this restitution was on par with the legitimacy of the Yalta Conference. Despite being originally in an alliance with Hitler, the Soviets described themselves as liberators rather than oppressors and Stalin's propaganda machine started working overtime in Eastern Europe as soon as the war ended; even though Poland would not officially become a satellite republic until 1948 (some use 1947, the date of rigged presidential elections, but it was until a year later that political parties would be officially unified), cultural repatriation of works looted by the Nazis began as early as 1945 and the Soviet government helped coordinate these efforts to put responsibility for all war-time pain and suffering on the Germans.
- One example: in 1945, the National Museum organized Warsaw Accuses to illustrate the degree of cultural destruction wrought by the Germans by displaying broken frames, damaged artworks, etc. placing all of the blame explicitly on the Nazis; any works returned to Poland during that time and throughout the communist rule would be seen as legitimately restituted, often with the cooperation with UNESCO, and aided by the Soviets. Again, this is only a very brief summary of what is a very complicated subject the scope of which goes way beyond this article. But what I am trying to say is that we are talking about a painting originally stolen by the Nazis, which would then be brought back to Poland by those who had, at least on paper, liberated the country (even though they'd be directly responsible for imposing a totalitarian regime soon after). Ppt91talk 17:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks; I appreciate the detailed explanation. I think you're absolutely right: quote and attribute the Rzeczpospolita article for the perhaps unavoidable, but potentially non NPOV, description of the mechanism. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist Done. I hope that the upcoming publication on the painting will help clarify this. I'll update when I have access to the book, hopefully later this year. Ppt91talk 19:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks; I appreciate the detailed explanation. I think you're absolutely right: quote and attribute the Rzeczpospolita article for the perhaps unavoidable, but potentially non NPOV, description of the mechanism. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to hear more about
Analysis
edit- @UndercoverClassicist Replying to all remaining points in this section. One, I am becoming somewhat concerned with my overall interpretation of Wolff's reading of the work and I think it might be a good idea to rephrase completely so as to avoid possible misrepresentation. I have changed to:
Analyzing Eastern European representation in the late 18th-century Western art, historian Larry Wolff considers the motif of horsemanship in the Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki, with its "taming and harnessing", as suggestive of civilization. He observes that the "the Polish nobleman astride a perfectly poised, intensely muscled horse, head bent in submission beneath a dramatic mane" is depicted with great discipline.
To be completely honest, my brain is hurting in regard to this source; his work is central to my research more broadly and the more I get into it here, the more convoluted it seems to become. The above suggestion is not perfect, but to me it sounds clearer than the original phrasing. If you are content with the degree of clarity, I feel most comfortable leaving Wolff at that.- I'm not sure exactly what civilization means in this context: presumably, the subjugation of 'uncivilized' lands/people by 'civilized' (white, European, aristocratic) people(s)? In a nutshell, are we talking about a thing or a process? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist Well his entire argument has to do with how the invention of Eastern Europe as a concept, a political and cultural counterpart to the West traditionally tied to the creation of the Soviet Union and its later subjugation of Eastern European countries, predates the Cold War and goes all the way back to the Enlightenment period. Here's the book blurb:
This is a wide-ranging intellectual history of how, in the 18th century, Europe came to be conceived as divided into "Western Europe" and "Eastern Europe". The author argues that this conceptual reorientation from the previously accepted "Northern" and "Southern" was a work of cultural construction and intellectual artifice created by the philosophes of the Enlightenment. He shows how the philosophers viewed the continent from the perspective of Paris and deliberately cultivated an idea of the backwardness of "Eastern Europe" the more readily to affirm the importance of "Western Europe".
So, in short, yes, we're talking about both. Ppt91talk 23:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)- I suspect this one will need to end up fairly close to Wolff's text. Is it too much of a stretch to say that
Wolff considers the motif of horsemanship in the Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki, with its "taming and harnessing", within the context of Enlightenment ideology, which called for for the so-called "civilization" of Eastern Europe by a Western-European culture centred on Paris
? - In any case, I think civilization needs some kind of explanation, clarification and framing, particularly as it's such a value-laden and arguably anachronistic term: I don't think Wikipedia can start throwing around the idea that only some people are "civilized", at least not in its own voice. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist Here is the full quote. I wonder if you'll find my summary of his argument convincing; due to my work in Eastern European subject, I am biased and could have easily applied my own interpretative frame without fully realizing it. Anyway, curious to hear your thoughts.
The idea of horsemanship, with its suggestions of civilization by taming and harnessing, was also essential to artistic images of Eastern Europe in the 1780s. In the Paris Salon of 1781 Jacques Louis-David showed his paint-muscled horse, head bent in submission beneath a dramatic mane. A foreleg is held aloft from the ground so still, with such obvious discipline, that the there would be no need to fear for any nearby cups and saucers.
(Larry Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994, 103.) Ppt91talk 18:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)- That does read (admittedly, out of context) like Wolff is saying that the image of horse-taming a horse was seen as a metaphor for the "taming and harnessing" of Eastern Europe. Perhaps
Analyzing Eastern European representation in the late 18th-century Western art, historian Larry Wolff considers that the motif of horsemanship alluded to the "taming and harnessing" of Eastern Europe, in common with other works of art from the 1780s.
Given that Wolff's use of it is ambiguous (does he mean civilisation as an abstract noun or a gerund?), I'd be tempted not even to include that word. Up to you; I'm happy so long as it's framed as Wolff's choice of words. This is fine for the spot check, too. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)- I changed to yours with a minor tweak; might end up rephrasing it at a later point, but I think for now this works well. As for
Does Schnapper (or anyone else) say anything about the significance of the slightly odd setting - simultaneously a stable and a Classical temple? Is there some nativity symbolism going on here?
nothing specific comes to mind, so perhaps best to leave as is. Thanks! Ppt91talk 19:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I changed to yours with a minor tweak; might end up rephrasing it at a later point, but I think for now this works well. As for
- That does read (admittedly, out of context) like Wolff is saying that the image of horse-taming a horse was seen as a metaphor for the "taming and harnessing" of Eastern Europe. Perhaps
- @UndercoverClassicist Here is the full quote. I wonder if you'll find my summary of his argument convincing; due to my work in Eastern European subject, I am biased and could have easily applied my own interpretative frame without fully realizing it. Anyway, curious to hear your thoughts.
- I suspect this one will need to end up fairly close to Wolff's text. Is it too much of a stretch to say that
- @UndercoverClassicist Replying to all remaining points in this section. One, I am becoming somewhat concerned with my overall interpretation of Wolff's reading of the work and I think it might be a good idea to rephrase completely so as to avoid possible misrepresentation. I have changed to:
- Does Schnapper (or anyone else) say anything about the significance of the slightly odd setting - simultaneously a stable and a Classical temple? Is there some nativity symbolism going on here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Source spot-checks
editEarwig is happy that there's no significant CopyVio. There are 28 references cited. I'm taking the Polish sources on WP:AGF, since I can't read Polish and I can't see anything sufficiently controversial to merit asking you to go through the effort of providing a translation.
- 19:
Wolff 1994, supportingWolff contended that the Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki effectively employed the motif of horsemanship to symbolize civilization
- This has changed in light of my recent edits. Please let me know whether you'd still like any quotes. Ppt91talk 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd like a quotation to support whatever the article ends up saying about the painting being symbolic of "civilization", though I'd suggest that you do that after finalising what you want the text to read.
- Now got it above. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd like a quotation to support whatever the article ends up saying about the painting being symbolic of "civilization", though I'd suggest that you do that after finalising what you want the text to read.
- This has changed in light of my recent edits. Please let me know whether you'd still like any quotes. Ppt91talk 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- A huge amount of work has gone into this article: congratulations to the nominator on what is an excellent piece of work. I will refrain from giving full comments; I hope the litany of resolved matters above will testify to the skill and patience of the writer in getting this to its current standard.
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- ... that Jacques-Louis David's Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki from 1781 has been described as one his masterpieces? Source: "David was soon to achieve a total rejection of the Rococo in a trio of masterpieces of 1780-81 executed both before and after his return to Paris from Italy - St Roch, Portrait of Count Potocki, and Belisarius (...)" (Rosenblum, Robert (1973). "David's 'Funeral of Patroclus'". The Burlington Magazine. 115 (846): 575)
- ALT1: ... that Jacques-Louis David's Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki from 1781 marked the return of equestrian portraiture to European painting of the late 18th century? Source: "By the middle of the eighteenth century, equestrian portraits had become scarce. (...) By the end of the century, the genre returned, marked by David's magnificent portrait of Count Potocki." Sandström, Birgitta (1988). "An Equestrian Portrait of the Duc d'Orléans by Alexander Roslin". Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts. 64 (1): 52.
- ALT2: ... that that Jacques-Louis David's Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki from 1781 depicts its subject wearing the Order of the White Eagle, Poland's highest order of merit? Source: Brookner, Anita. “Paris.” The Burlington Magazine 100, no. 668 (1958): 404 and Order Orła Białego, Prezydent.pl, Official Website of the President of the Republic of Poland (https://www.prezydent.pl/prezydent/kompetencje/ordery-i-odznaczenia/ordery/order-orla-bialego) (the latter is a source to indicate that it is the highest order)
- Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Ppt91 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @Ppt91: Good article. Personally, alt1 is really the hook that interests me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Onegreatjoke Thanks! I am happy with ALT1. Ppt91talk 17:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)