Draft talk:Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this draft duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://hekint.org/2018/05/15/visualizing-mozart/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft improvement ideas

@NeoGaze: Thanks for your patience and work here. Please let me go over some of the major areas where this article needs improvement.

• The draft currently seems to be confused over whether it is a list or article. If the latter, it seems to impart little apart from what is already addressed in the article on Mozart's physical appearance. A separate article ought to address the history of Mozart iconography, its evolution, how these may be reflective of changing perceptions of Mozart's music or even contemporary socio-economic trends. There also seems to be confusion about what precisely is being addressed. The quotes from Schurig and Einstein suggest that the draft is about Mozart iconography in general. However, it immediately goes on to address only those paintings that were made of Mozart during his lifetime, with a secondary element about questions of authenticity—then takes another sharp turn into posthumous likenesses which are indisputably and obviously inauthentic. So what is this draft about exactly? Maybe it should only be about likenesses of Mozart for which he is confirmed to have sat for as model. Or maybe it should encompass all paintings made during his lifetime, including the inauthentic ones, with a discussion of related research and verification. Or maybe it ought to be about the iconography of Mozart generally, which would encompass all kinds of depictions such as those on Mozartkugel.
• If a list of Mozart paintings is the intention here, consider reading WP:LISTPURP. You may also want to consult similar lists such as those devoted to paintings, especially ones rated GA and FA such as this one.
• Although the draft appears to be extensively sourced, it has pervasive WP:SYNTH, WP:SUBJECTIVE, and WP:OR issues. The section on Dora Stock's portrait, for example, begins with "[it] shows an elegant side-profile of the composer with a notably exhausted expression, perhaps reflecting the increasingly desperate financial situation of the composer". It then cites Solomon's Mozart bio. The cited link you provided goes nowhere, so I pulled my copy of the book off my shelf and consulted the pages you cited. It only discusses his performances in Leipzig and Berlin, the "wretchedly meager" profits he earned in the former, and doubts over whether he indeed played for the Prussian queen, Sophie von Dönhoff. Solomon makes no mention therein of Stock or the portrait. The entire statement that begins the section on the Dora Stock portrait is pure original research or, at best, your personal synthesis of what Solomon actually said. This is unacceptable.
• Aesthetic judgments and personal evaluations are not properly attributed. Instead, they are stated throughout the draft as if they are objective facts. Again, this is unacceptable. Please read WP:VOICE and WP:NPOVFAQ to learn how you can improve this.
• Returning to the matter of WP:SUBJECTIVE, the draft is written throughout in a way that seems more personal reflection than objective statement of facts. Please read WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:SUBSTANTIATE, and WP:ENCSTYLE for more information.
• The page ranges in your citations are unacceptably wide; for example, the aforementioned Solomon citation encompassed five pages. As much as possible, please cite the exact page. A range of up to two pages is fine, but any more than that may inadvertently further lend the impression of WP:SYNTH. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: Thanks for your feedback, for now I will revise every citation and remove the aesthetic judgements you mention.

The overall layout and format of the draft was inspired by the article on the portraits of Johann Sebastian Bach, and so I thought it would be fine as it seems that article has raised no issues with Wikipedia standards. Also the centralidea of the draft was to bring the most common and relevant portraits of Mozart and categorize them as "authentic", "dubious" and "inauthentic", with all the relevant info as of why. I had no intention of creating a sort of overarching "history and evolution of Mozart iconography", and almost all the sources I consulted and are included in the draft neither attempted to do such a thing.

For the introductory paragraphs I took the info provided in the article about the "Appearance and character of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" (no straight copypaste mind you, if that is what you think), but the main body of the draft, the categories and painting descriptions, were almost completely written by myself with different aims. So I disagree with what you say that it "impart little apart from what is already addressed in the article on Mozart's physical appearance". Even when the same paintings are addressed (example; the Lange or Krafft portraits) the wording is almost completely different. In that article the portraits are given a more general overview, while in this one each are individually talked in detail: 1) a general visual description of the painting (this part will be removed as said before), 2) when and by whom it was created, 3) the circumstances surrounding its creation (if they are relevant), 4) under what category the painting falls in view of the evidence and the opinion of Mozart experts 5) the technique and support used, 6) its owner and current location. I think this approach differentiates enough between said article and this draft.

If you still believe that the drafts needs to substantially change in its aim, I think that the best possibility may be to just include the portraits realised during Mozart's lifetime. Limiting it to just authentic ones leaves out a wide number of portraits that also are relevant, frequently used and talked about (most notably the Greuze and Edlinger paintings). On the other hand, I don't think a general list of Mozart portraits is feasible due to the sheer quantity of them.

Again, thank you for your help and your comments. I will be waiting for your answer before making more drastic changes. I just hope this draft doesn't end up being canned since I invested a lot of time and effort.

That is all for now. Have a good day. NeoGaze (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)