Talk:Model (art)/GA2

GA review

The 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: WriterArtistDC (talk · contribs) 00:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

More than time someone reviewed this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after many months on the nominations list, this review begins on a holiday in the US which means I will not be doing any significant work until at least September 3rd. WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, as long as you can commit to working on it seriously, say with a planned completion target of around September 17th? If it turns out more time is needed, we can cross that bridge when it falls down, as they say in project management. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

For me, working serious means collaborating to identify and solve issues. I have already accepted and made edits based upon some of your suggestions, but the major issue is the interpretation of the content of the Academic modeling section as mostly SYNTH. I see the specific instances of institutional policy I have cited as examples of implementation of those policies, not as original research to establish that such policies exist. I have moved and edited some content from other sections to clarify my intentions.

See: Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not.

I also see the film list as the correct format to present information that is only peripherally related to the topic, which is the role of art models in real life. I have added another list of literary works. WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You have fixed some of the issues, thank you. The Academic section may perhaps be rescuabke, but at the least it needs to indicate when using examples that this is what it is doing, not stating general rules. Thus, 'Schools such as A and B do XYZ' may be OK but 'Schools [implicitly always] do XYZ' is not.

Meanwhile, the Family members section is certainly very thin, lacking discussion of critics' views on the matter, and the Literature section says no more than 'Models appeared', which is exactly as uninformative as the Films list. Lists are a poor choice, if not actually forbidden, precisely because they lack critical analysis from reliable secondary sources. All the book refs need to be checked for page numbers, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

BTW, it works much better to reply item-by-item than to place large texts in a general discussion like this one. Then we can solve problems one by one rather than arguing about theory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Since reference numbers change when revisions are made, many items are no longer identifiable. WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You will have to refer to this version. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I think of the In popular culture items as I do the See also items; a list of links to related subjects, but outside the main topic of the article, which is art modeling in real life, not fiction. If any reader is interested in further information, they can click on the link in the list. This is the means to maintain "summary style" on WP.WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You may do, but Wikipedia doesn't... in any case, "popular culture" tends to WP:TRIVIA which is rightly deprecated. The chapter should be a serious one, with critical analysis, of literature and film. Both are areas of scholarship, so pop doesn't cover it. And please, reply item-by-item below, it's much more productive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You continue to state or imply that WP has rules. After almost 20 years of editing, I know that it does not. WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Forget the rules, we're trying to create a decent article here. The culture section needs to discuss models in culture, not just list some instances. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

What is the cultural section? WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

At the moment it's called 'In popular culture'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Since the opening of the article defines the topic as models in real life, these lists are distantly related, perhaps off-topic. Expanding them would only increase the latter. Should they instead be deleted? WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Defining things out of existence is a popular pastime. We normally include a cultural view of a topic whether an article is in the arts or the sciences, so the section is necessarily one step removed from the article's defined topic. Thus Apple#culture rightly, in my view, looks at how the fruit has been and is seen in different aspects of culture over the centuries. This article is however already about art's view of the model, so models-in-print and models-in-film are sister topics to this article; the child topics for the culture section would therefore need to be print's view of models-in-art, or film's view of models-in-art: a bit more abstruse. There are indeed some films about models-in-art, so we'd need critical analysis of those portrayals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I have thought of a way past this disagreement that should accomodate both points of view. Since I have already mentioned in the lead the problem faced by models of contending with popular misconceptions of their role, the "In popular culture" items could be moved to a new subsection to suppliment "Emotional work" and used as examples of literature and film promoting misconceptions. (I am thinking of adding "Titanic", and have already found a reference with an interesting factoid: it wad James Cameron's hand doing the drawing in that scene.) Much of the second paragraph in the lead could be moved along with all but one of the citations in the lead, a new summary of the article then written. This would take some time, given the additional research needed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, try that, if you think it will work. We can always rearrange it if it doesn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "In recent years" has no meaning and is a hostage to time and tide. Please supply a date of some kind.
  • Changed to "In the 21st century"

• I've marked some citations needed, e.g. in 'Films'.
  • Cited.

• The 'Films' section is currently a list, which feels both a bit random and uncomfortably close to synthesis. The section would work much better as a text cited to sources that directly discussed the use of models in films, rather than in quasi-primary style commenting in passing that a model was portrayed in such-and-such a film. In short, I'm not sure any of the sourcing in the section is actually sufficient at the moment as it's not even slightly about the subject of this article.
  • • This is now N/A due to moving the content to a new section.
      • Yes, that works a whole lot better.

• The unsatisfactory 'Films' subsection is currently the only component of 'In popular culture'. Where is the subsection on 'Literature'?
  • Thanks for adding a bit on literature; as I've indicated, that seems as unsatisfactory as the 'Films' list, and for the same reasons.
    • Ditto
      • As above, hugely improved.

Note: I've removed a couple of instances where the article's title was redundantly echoed in section headings.

Images

• All are on Commons and plausibly licensed.

• Please wikilink Evelyn Nesbit.
  • There is both a painting and a photo of Evelyn Nesbit in the gallery, the first instance is wikilinked.
    • Ah, ok: but that's probably UNDUE: why do you think two images of her are needed?
      • The images being of the same model focuses on the aesthetics of the different media.
        • We can't do that without cited text that talks explicitly about how artists using different media favoured her as a model, otherwise it's your opinion which is original research by image and caption. Citations are needed.

• We have 2 galleries to accompany the section 'Family members, wives and life partners' (a mealy-mouthed apology for a title if ever I heard one), with 13 images between them. This seems WP:UNDUE for a section of one paragraph which basically says nothing more than the fancy-that claim "Artists use family as models." This is extremely thin, to say the least: I'm not convinced that the section is even necessary, but if we're to keep it we need to find something more solid to say about it: was it just the easiest thing? just to save money? because artists were so vain they liked to portray their partners and mistresses? (What about all the portrayal of close friends' wives who were also the artists' mistresses by the Pre-Raphaelites and the Bloomsbury Set, surely there is some analysis we can cite there?) It must be possible to find an art critic who has written about Renoir's use of Aline Charigot, too, given that he later married her. In short, we need to cite some real statements about the practice by scholars and critics, not just to SYNTH-ishly state that A, B, C, and D all did it. Perhaps if we have some more solid text it will become clearer which images are actually needed to support it.
  • I'm not sure what to say in response. The section and images are merely illustrating the fact that some individuals fitting the definition of art model at the beginning of this article were not paid professionals, but had a prior relationship with the artist. The title "Family members, wives and life partners" refers to those relationships in a direct and inclusive way. The article is mostly about paid models, but it is not off-topic to acknowledge that some famous works (exemplified by only 13 from the 17th to the 20th centuries) were created with unpaid models.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
    • Not sure that gets to the bottom of the issue here. Both the text and the gallery just say "here are some instances"; what is missing is any sort of critical discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
      • Looking at it again, the main issue here (weak text or no) is that the gallery of 8 images in 'Family members, wives and life partners' looks WP:UNDUE (per WP:GALLERY) to illustrate one simple point (wives can be models). Suggest you use one image per century which at least makes the point of continuity in time.

• The images sandwich the text in 'Clothed modeling'.

• Pixel dimensions are specified for some images. This is not forbidden but it's inadvisable as it overrides user settings: folks can specify how large thumbnail images are to be in their Preferences. Much better to use "|upright=0.6" or whatever value (can be greater than 1) to size images proportionately.

Sources

• There are sources in the lead, of which some introduce "new" materials not in the article body. I'd suggest it would be best to remove all the sources from the lead, for the avoidance of doubt.

(has been fixed)

• [3], [5], [6], [8] exist only in the lead, so they are certainly "new" (i.e. misplaced).
  • One section in the lead which included all but one of these citations has been moved to the body. Although the word muse is often used, The 20th Century Muse[3] is only cited in the lead.
    • Improved, but we can't have claims and citations only in the lead. Would be best to remove all the citations from the lead, it's way clearer and avoids this issue.
      • I remember the "rule" about citations in the lead that they be limited to supporting statements for which the average reader would need immediate evidence of validity. I could likely move #3 (Vizin) but would need to see the text, and that book is in my local university library, not on my bookshelf as are many others.
        • You could just move the entire sentence as it is.

(has been fixed)

• [5 Borzello] lacks page numbers. ***
  • Although credited with 70+ percent of the text, this reference must not have been one of mine, since it is not available online or in my university's library. Used only as a cite for a platitude that most models are anonymous and unknown, I will simply delete it.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• [29] is the primary source (Natural Way to Draw, Nicolaides, but the author is missing from the citation, needs fixing), and can't be used to establish the claim about the impact of the book or about its popularity. ***
  • This has been removed in my rewrite of that section.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• [31]..[32] are used collectively to support a general statement. This is Original Research by Synthesis (WP:SYNTH).

• [33]..[36] ditto.

• [37]..[38] ditto.

• [39]..[40] ditto.

• [41]..[43] ditto.

• [46]..[47] ditto.

• [51]..[53] ditto.

• [88]..[89] ditto.

• [44]..[45] ditto, slightly softened by the "Some" but still SYNTH.

• [54]..[56] ditto, the qualification also ditto.

• I am sorry to say, therefore, that essentially the whole of 'Academic modeling' needs to be rewritten from fresh sources which directly support the claims made without synthesis. It may be that [4] and [55] could form the basis for a synthesis-free section. The books in 'Further reading' may also be useful here.
  • OK, the rearrangement and additional qualification has converted the usages into examples not general rules.

• The instances of [4] in 'Academic modeling', and one in 'Photography', need page numbers.
  • Done
• Foreign language sources e.g. [14] need |language=se and |trans-title="KYO – The Art Models' Trade Organisation".
  • Done
• Every source needs both |title= and then either |publisher= or |website= parameters.
  • I have fixed all of these that I can find.

Summary

• This article requires some sections to be rewritten, and one section to be created. I'm happy to support you through these changes, provided you're willing to undertake them reasonably promptly. (have been fixed) Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• We're down to a few items remaining. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  I will now rebuild the lead section to reflect the current content of the article. WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  I am done, unless there are any other suggestions. WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Good work. Hope you are pleased with the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.