Talk:The Dance of Anitra/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Nominator: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 07:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CounterpointStitch (talk · contribs) 12:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested: please read the thread below about the relevance of contextual detail not directly related to the statuette. The article is very well written; am I asking too much for a GA review by asking for the background to be more tightly scoped?

I’m pleased to take on the GA review of this outstanding piece of work, though somewhat reluctantly, since achieving GA will, I’m afraid, require removing much of the detailed material on Edith Maryon, Maud Allan and Ibsen’s play.

Thanks very much for taking this on, CounterpointStitch. I’ve responded to the spelling points below, and will take a crack at whittling down the background section. I’ll just note at the outset that at least some of the background is necessary, given that the sculpture represents the convergence of four subjects. Understanding why Maryon sculpted Allan requires understanding where they both were in their careers, and understanding what the sculpture depicts requires understanding the play and music behind the dance. But as you said, these sections could be shorter, and I’ll give that a go. —Usernameunique (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’re very welcome! You are of course right, but I’d say as a rule remember that people will go to each specific page if they are interested in the broader detail, so make sure that any context you provide is linked directly to the statuette. Best of luck and I hope it isn’t too time consuming! CounterpointStitch (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CounterpointStitch, would you please mind taking a look now? I’ve cut the article by nearly 20%, even accounting for a new paragraph on the proliferation of statuettes of Allan during the height of her fame. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the background section has become short, but it does now provide only a pure outline of each subject, with the detail saved for the subjects directly related to the sculpture. Thanks, —Usernameunique (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, thank you for these edits! I’ve reviewed the current version and I’m afraid I have the same comment as before. The issue isn’t necessary length but weight given to certain aspects of background which isn’t directly tied to the statuette.

For example, it makes sense to explain Maud Allan in the specific context of Peer Gynt, her conquest of London, and the proliferation of gift-shop statuettes, but not the rest of her career, her early life, or her death. Likewise, Edith Maryon’s role as the sculptor is important, but biographical details such as her birth, parents, etc., don’t belong. Remember that the idea is that readers who want more can follow the links in the article.

However, I don’t want to impose a standard that goes beyond what is expected for GA status so I’ve asked for a second opinion, hopefully we will get one soon!

Thanks once again for your hard work. CounterpointStitch (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to request for a 2nd opinion) This is a very carefully-written and well-constructed article. I do rather agree that the ‘Background’ chapter is overcooked. I’d expect one paragraph on Maryon, one on Peer Gynt, and one on Allan just to give the reader a quick idea of the context. Instead, it takes up well over half of the main text, which does seem clearly out of balance here. To look at this from a different perspective, each of these three background topics has its own ‘Main’ article and link, so there is no need to do more than to provide a quick “summary style” overview of each one: and that would be true even if they were part of ‘Description’ or ‘Themes’ rather than of ‘Background’. I’d therefore support CounterpointStitch in calling for it to be trimmed radically. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I second that it should be radically cut to around a small paragraph for each of the main background topics, as as it stands, this article is more about Maryon, Allan and Peer Gynt than the actual statue. That being said, the content on those three topics is really well written and I think it should be moved to the respective main articles to avoid wastage. The Edith Maryon article is actually currently less complete than the background section on her in this article! I am going to mark this second opinion as answered. IAWW (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CounterpointStitch, Chiswick Chap, and It is a wonderful world; much appreciated for taking the time to take a look and weigh in, let alone so thoughtfully. I’ve further cut the sections on Maryon, Peer Gynt, and Allen, including by taking out the specific parts mentioned (e.g., the rest of [Allan’s] career, her early life, or her death). The article is now down by about 33%. I’ve also slightly expanded the portion discussing the statuette (most notably with the addition of a gallery), to give it additional weight. It now thus generally follows CounterpointStitch’s recommendation that we explain Maud Allan in the specific context of Peer Gynt, her conquest of London, and the proliferation of gift-shop statuettes while excluding the rest of her career, her early life, or her death, along with Edith Maryon’s … biographical details, although it’s longer than the paragraph per background section that you suggest, IAWW and Chiswick Chap.

As a general matter, the thought process behind the background section is—if someone such as a docent were to explain the statuette to an interested audience—what would they say about it? They would explain that Maryon was a classically trained English sculptor who flourished at the turn of the century; they would note her association with Steiner, and that she worked on The Representative of Humanity and the eurythmy figures that The Dance of Anitra presaged. They would gloss the play Peer Gynt and the development of its titular protagonist, giving special attention to the fourth act. And they would explain Allen—and probably in more detail that our article now does: how she came from a blue-collar background interlaced with the San Francisco élite, how her brother was convicted of “The Crime of the Century”, how as a flash-in-the-pan success she became the (controversial) toast of London across eighteen months in 1908 and 1909, how her statuettes were sold everywhere (with this being the rare high-art example), and how the flash quickly faded, including with a widely publicized libel trial that blackballed her from the London stage. Indeed, much of what makes this sculpture so fascinating (besides its mere beauty) is how it ties together and provides a platform for these different narratives.

But that’s just me. If there are specific portions that you still think should be removed, I’d be interested in hearing which ones. Thanks, —Usernameunique (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think choosing what background material is relevant, or in other words, acting like a “docent”, is original research. See in the first paragraph of that policy: To demonstrate that one is not adding original research, one must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. IAWW (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, It is a wonderful world. Every part of drafting an article involves exercising discretion over what material is relevant and worthy of inclusion, but that doesn’t make it original research. Per WP:OR, On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. Here, every part of the background section (along with the rest of the article) is cited to such sources. WP:AUDIENCE, meanwhile, instructs to Provide context … Assume readers are reading the article to learn, and gives several thought experiments to help you test whether you are setting enough context—which is basically just another version of the docent thought experiment.

You might have been thinking of synthesis, since that involves taking material from different sources. But this wouldn’t be applicable either, because that’s about synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, which this article doesn’t do. —Usernameunique (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Usernameunique. WP:OR doesn’t just require that information be cited to a reliable source, but that the source is also directly related to the topic of the article, meaning the subject of the article must be directly referred to in each source you use in the background section. Note that WP:AUDIENCE is an essay/guide that doesn’t supersede WP:OR. Context can still be added through the methods of WP:AUDIENCE, but it also needs to be cited to a source which is directly relevant to the subject of the article. I’m definitely not thinking of synthesis, I agree that that’s a whole separate issues. IAWW (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, there is less consensus around this than I thought. When searching the original research noticeboard I found this recent thread, where consensus around the interpretation of this wording in WP:OR as it applies to background sections is mixed. I left my above comment as it clearly lays out where I stand on this issue as it applies to this article. I think it would be best if I step back and let @Chiswick Chap and @CounterpointStitch give their opinions on whether the background sections in this article are still an issue. Of course it is ultimately up to Stitch to make the call as he is the reviewer. IAWW (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable context is not OR, as long as it’s limited to what an average reader needs to understand the topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. It is a wonderful world, I don’t read that section of WP:OR to say that each source cited in an article must be directly related to the article’s subject—which would require massive shortening of many articles (including featured ones), and would also mean that no article could cite a source older than the article’s subject. As you say, those words are the subject of much muttering, and were almost removed in 2022 as a result (see discussion). One interpretation seems to be that they are a (redundant) guard against synthesis, which we have already agreed is not at issue here. Another possibility is that they meant one thing, then got muddied up in this 2006 edit followed by this one (please appreciate the edit summary for the latter: maybe this will be clearer), and no one noticed at the time.

In any event, I think we both agree that our exegesis of Wikipedia policies is, at this point, best left aside so that CounterpointStitch may once again take the reins. Thanks again for the civilized discourse. —Usernameunique (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very well-written prose, suitable for a general audience. A few minor spelling mistakes which are detailed below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead almost meets GA criteria, though could be more concise, focusing only on the core aspects of the topic. As a brief example, direct quotes of reviews should not be duplicated in full.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are reputable and well-presented.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See above.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Leaving all boxes except 3b blank as they easily pass GA status.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The information about Edith Maryon is better suited to her own page. If readers are interested in this context, they can follow the link. The same is the case of Maud Allan and Peer Gynt. If any of this information is kept at all, it should only be that which is directly relevant to the topic, the statuette.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

1a. Spelling mistakes:

• ouevre => œuvre or oeuvre

• pourtraying => portraying

I believe in this situation you should use Template:sic (see sic). IAWW (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Black & white photograph of Edition Maryon’s sculpture => Edith Maryon’s sculpture

• distinctive sculptural stype => style