Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth Siddal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exhumatinon "Legend"

[edit]

Her hair continued to grow while dead? My ass (hairs). Where is this legend taken from? And please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.123.155 (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, but perhaps you are missing the point. The myths and legends here would be of the true nature of the Rossetti family. Wikipedia isn't exactly doing a great of job of portraying them as a witches coven. The Rossetti family was undoubtedly wicked, perhaps the gods of justice demand more than just the demise of their foolish son. Siddall (notice the true spelling of her "improper" name) deserved much better than this. Also notice how all true English women have lost their beauty, perhaps maybe this is the curse of Siddall? ;) Justice never sleeps, it waits.

The photo is dated 1860. I'll bet it's a death photo. A very common practice in Victorian times was to photograph a lost family member fully dressed with all family members. Sometimes the eyes refuse to stay open.203.219.69.38 (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely given the pose. Paul B (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? Her pose and face both look inert.. what are you smoking? I agree with the anonymous user, the photo looks strange, the position seems abnormal, this very well may be a death photo. Haunting

The photo is very likely to be a death sitting, i.e. she is dead but dressed for the camera. These were very common during the Victorian era, particularly of young children.14.202.185.156 (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch by Lewis Carroll

[edit]

There is a pencil sketch at http://chasseausnark.blogspot.com/2008/02/elizabeth-siddal.html which purports to be of Siddal drawn on 8 October 1863 (after Siddal's death) by Lewis Carroll. If anyone can verify this, that image could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. -84user (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Siddal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Siddal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie?

[edit]

...styled and commonly known as Elizabeth Siddal

I should say, contemporarily at least, she is more usually referred to as Lizzie. Then again, so is Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha familiarly among her subjects, both with affection, and vehemently without.

Nuttyskin (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siddal or Siddall

[edit]

It's been a long time since I took the Preraphaelites module at University, so I can't answer this myself. But even within this article it's unclear if her surname is supposed to be Siddal (as per the title) or Siddall (as per the lede). Anyone want to weigh in? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Hawksley's BBC.com article

[edit]

I happened to see this today by the author of a book by a similar name.

  • Hawksley, Lucinda (2020-01-07). "The tragedy of art's greatest supermodel". BBC. Retrieved 2020-01-07.

Peaceray (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2020

Potential backwards copy

[edit]

Today I stumbled across a potential copyright violation. Please see this comparison between the 2018-03-03T15:12:32 Wikipedia version & the August 15, 2021 update on www.scarpantolady.com/elizabeth-siddal.

I believe this to be a backwards copy for these reasons:

  • The insertion occurred with this edit, dated 2018-03-03T15:12:32, by FencingQueen (talk · contribs).
  • The text on www.scarpantolady.com/elizabeth-siddal/ reads Elizabeth Siddal by scarpantolady updated on August 15, 2021.

I was unable to find any archived versions of scarpantolady.com at archive.com. However, I did add one of this page in question at web.archive.org/web/20211201233051/http://www.scarpantolady.com/elizabeth-siddal/.

@FencingQueen: I see that you last edited on 2020-03-27. When you next log on & get a chance to read this, would you please confirm that my interpretation is correct. Peaceray (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I plan to reorganize the images so that Rossetti's portraits of Siddall, Regina Cordium (near to their wedding) & Beata Beatrix (well after her death) are more appropriately placed int the Marriage to Rossetti and Relationship with Rossetti's Family section where they will be more chronologically placed.

I think a thumbnail of How They Met Themselves would be appropriately placed near the mention of the Neil Gaiman story of the same name.

I also think that a gallery of images of her work & that depict her work as a model would be appropriate, similar to the Suzanne Valadon article. Peaceray (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth Siddal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all appropriately licensed.

  • FN 13 cites a TV program; is this a documentary? I can't tell. It seems to be a combination of a play and an interview?[a]
  • Murray (2018) appears to be a masters thesis; how does this meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence"?[b]
  • The lead is a little short for an article of this length.
 Completed I have lengthened it from three to eight sentences. Peaceray (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few uncited sentences -- at the end of "Early life";[a] at the end of the first paragraph of "Relationship with Rossetti";[c] at the end of the second paragraph of "Artwork"; at the end of the "Ill health and death" section; the sonnet in "After Siddal's death";[a] and several sentences in the "Legacy" section.[d]
    Still a couple -- the easiest way to spot them is just run your eyes down the end of each paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Completed I think that I have largely resolved this. Peaceray (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "Siddal" during the "Early life" paragraph, alongside her family name of "Siddall", without explanation. I would suggest either using "Siddall" until the name change occurs, or explaining at the first use of "Siddal" that she later changed it.[a]
    I think this is still an issue. I see you have a footnote at the first use of "Siddal", which is helpful, but since it's a footnote some readers will skip it. How about "Elizabeth Eleanor Siddall (25 July 1829 – 11 February 1862), better known as Elizabeth Siddal, a spelling she adopted in the 1850s, was an English artist..." and skip the footnote. That tells the reader why we are going to use the spelling "Siddall" initially. Then use "Siddall" (or Elizabeth, to avoid the issue) till the name change happens, at which point we can explain it inline -- it seems significant enough a point not to relegate it to a footnote. I'm not sure we need the note about the diminutives or her legal surname; up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Completed I have changed the language to incorporate your suggestion, but retained the footnote as I still think it useful. The diminutives are frequently mentioned in sources. Peaceray (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paid a record sum for her work in the 1960s": is the amount known? And in what sense was it a record? The most for art by a woman?[e]
  • "Starting until 24 September 2023": this makes no sense.[f]
  • "this re-establishment of sexuality environment": I don't know what this means.[g]
  • There's quite a list of depictions of Siddal in literature. I think anything that has not been discussed in a secondary source should be cut.[h] The Fiona Mountain book, for example, is sourced only to Fiona Mountain.[b] The paper by Murray would work to support the mention of Harris, but per my query above I think you may have to remove Murray[b]. Similarly the TV references and the mention of Brigham need secondary sources.[i] And why do we need to mention that the Delaware Art Museum "also has a substantial Pre-Raphaelite collection"?[j]
 Completed I removed anything without a secondary reference. Peaceray (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are able to show Murray is reliable it looks like there are other references to Siddal in her work that could be included in the article.[b]

That's everything for a first pass. I will do spotchecks once these issues are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I will probably start attending to this on Sunday PDT as I am mostly in transit today. Peaceray (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I would say that is used would be more accurate than you used. My first edit was in 2020, & the article has existed since 2003. Most of my work has been in redoing citations & rearranging the material. I have left much of the language in place as I had found it, which was not always for the best. Of course, as part of this process, we are now addressing the unsupported assertions that I overlooked while concentrating elsewhere in the article.
It is such a benefit to have another set of eyes on this! Thank you! Peaceray (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ a b c d Addressed 2023-04-09
  2. ^ a b c d removed 2023-04-11
  3. ^ Addressed 2023-04-10
  4. ^ Exhibitions and collections subsection addressed 2023-04-10
  5. ^ I found no verification of a "record sum". Copy edited accordingly 2023-04-10
  6. ^ Addressed 2023-04-08 by Rmcubed (talk · contribs)
  7. ^ Removed 2023-04-09
  8. ^  Done 2023-04-11
  9. ^ Added secondary citation 2023-04-11
  10. ^ copy-edited 2023-04-11

Peaceray, I've gone through and struck or replied to most points above. I'll wait for you to respond on the outstanding issues and then read through again. Your method of replying via footnotes is new to me! Most people just thread a reply in the bullet list -- see this for example. You're welcome to carry on doing it your way, but it looks like a lot more work than threading so I thought I'd mention it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, I believe I have taken care of the problems you listed. Please check to see if you see any lingering issues. Peaceray (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck a couple of points and will look further tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the literature and memoirs during the 1880s and 90s, Elizabeth Siddal was depicted as "a fantasy sex" object in a manner of curious cult." This is oddly phrased -- it should start either "In literature and memoirs during" or "In the literature and memoirs of", and I don't know what "in a manner of curious cult" means -- but more importantly this is presumably Marsh's opinion and we should attribute it, unless we have evidence that there's academic consensus on this description of her. The same applies to the last sentence of the paragraph; the article presents these as facts, but I think they need to be presented as critical or historical opinions.
  • I reworked that paragraph to make the language more comprehensible & accessible.
  • I think we should drop the mention of Hardwick's novel -- the secondary source is just a review, and of course it covers the plot. I think to be useful here a book should be covered by a secondary source on Siddal or Rossetti -- a biography or critical analysis. Similarly I don't think the Gaiman novel is worth mentioning.
  • I removed the Hardwick novel, The Dreaming Damozel.
  • Gaiman is a well-known writer. That, & the fact that the title is the same as Rossetti's work depicting Siddal, uses the name "Lizzie" for the title character, & directly draws on the manner & timing of Siddal's death makes it appropriate for inclusion in the article. I think we would be remiss to not to mention it.
  • "How They Met Themselves is the name of two doppelgänger works, a painting and a drawing, by Rossetti that depict Siddal." I don't understand this -- we've mentioned that Rossetti painted and drew her thousands of times; why are we mentioning these two? And what does "doppelgänger" tell us?
  • I reworked this paragraph to remove doppelgänger & to change how Rossetti's work is referenced with respect to its title. Gaiman's story is pretty clearly inspired by the subject matter of that picture.
  • What makes lizziesiddal.com a reliable source? It looks like a one-person labor of love, not an academic site -- see this page. Without that source I think mention of the Tim Powers novel probably should be cut too.
  • I removed Powers's novel Hide Me Among the Graves. This also removed lizziesiddal.com as a footnote.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

[edit]
  • "In 1854, Siddal painted a self-portrait that diverged from the typical Pre-Raphaelite idealised beauty": what was the painting? Is it the one at right? And is there no comment from the source to add here -- was she starting to diverge from PRB orthodoxy, for example, or was it an aberration?
  • I added a directional, "(see right)" & made the italicized title consistent . I also added a quote from a new source to illustrate how this particular work diverged from other Pre-Raphaelite depictions of Siddal.
  • I don't usually see interlanguage links to Wikidata, as you've done for Constance Hassett; was that intended to be to another language's article on her? I don't think the Wikidata links are a good idea; the result isn't going to be comprehensible to most readers.
  • "Others have suggested she might have been anorexic while others attribute her poor health to a laudanum addiction or a combination of ailments." Repetitive structure; how about "Some have suggested" to start the sentence?
  • Copyedited; hopefully better
  • "Finally from the 1980s onward": "Most recently" might be safer than "Finally"; it's hard to imagine that the literary world will quit thinking of new ways to assess Siddal.
  • "Finally from the 1980s onward"—>"More recently" & other copyedit
  • 'Along with Algernon Charles Swinburne, Siddal and Rossetti are also the subjects of a work with the same title, "How They Met Themselves", that is part of The Sandman series': I don't understand this. Do you mean that in Gaiman's fictional world, there is a fictional artwork called "How They Met Themselves", which depicts Swinburne, Siddal, and Rossetti, and that Zulli drew a version of this subsequently? I see at the end of the paragraph "This story bears the same name as a drawing and a painting by Rossetti that depict Siddal"; is that what "a work with the same title" refers to?
  • That was a left-over artifact from an incomplete copyedit. I have edited it some more. It now should have better clarity.
  • The Cameron novel seems only to be cited to a review; is the review a critical work of enough substance to justify inclusion?
  • Removed

Spotchecks (footnote number refer to this version.

  • FN 50 cites "Since suicide was illegal and considered immoral, it would have brought scandal on the family and barred Siddal from a Christian burial." I don't have access to this source; can you quote the supporting text?
  • The page # for the {{sfn}} links directly to the page at the Internet Archive. p. 195 should take you directly to the page that says "Suicide was not only scandalous, it was alse illegal. [...] Lizzie would be unable to receive a Christian burial ..."
  • FN 55 cites "Their home at 14 Chatham Place was demolished": and quote this one too, please?
  • Again, the page # link should allow you to view that page, p. 47. The text lists their home address & a footnote indicates "Chatham Place no longer exists."
  • FN 39 cites "As Siddal came from a working-class family, Rossetti feared introducing her to his family": and this one.
  • The page links for the sfn template should allow you to view the text. p. 105 & 106; really too much to quote, so please see if you access them.
  • FN 27 cites "In 1852, she began to study with Rossetti. That same year, Siddal became lovers with Rossetti and moved into his Chatham Place residence. They subsequently became anti-social and absorbed in each other's affections. They coined affectionate nicknames for one another, such as "Guggums" or "Gug"": and this.
  • The first three sentences need needed some additional citations that I added & some copyedit. You should be able to acess p. 32 that states "Rossetti, on of whose pet names for Elizabeth Siddal was 'Guggum' or 'Gug' ..."
  • FN 2 cites "In 1853, Siddal signed The Lady of Shalott as "E. E. Siddal", the first known record of her shortened surname." The source has "The Lady of Shalott was Elizabeth Siddal’s first signed work, indicating an important turning point at which she began to see herself as a true artist" and it also shows the signature on that painting. I don't think this quite gives us "first known record of her shortened surname"; it's her first signed work, but she might have signed documents with the shortened version prior to that date. Do you have another source you can add to cover the gap?
  • No I do not. That is the first occasion that I am able to document that she used "Siddal". Do you have a suggestion for rewording it perhaps?
    How about 'In 1853, Siddal signed The Lady of Shalott as "E. E. Siddal", the first time she had signed one of her works and an early instance of her shortened surname"? I think it's worth keeping the fact that this was her first signed work, and "early" is less definite than "first" and I think is supportable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my input for tonight. Peaceray (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes and one response above. Sorry, hadn't realized the links would take me to the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because a couple of changes had to be made in response to the spotcheck, I'm going to check a couple more -- the spotcheck has to be clean for me to pass the GA. Footnote numbers now refer to this version.

  • FN 34 cites "It has been estimated that there are thousands of Rossetti's drawings, paintings, and poems in which Siddal was a subject." The source only talks about paintings; we know he did do drawings and poems in which Siddal was a subject as well, so this is not technically wrong, but I would suggest making this just "paintings" as that's what the source best supports.
  • FN 50 cites 'It was thought that she suffered from tuberculosis, but some historians believe an intestinal disorder was more likely. Elbert Hubbard wrote that "She suffered much from neuralgia, and the laudanum taken to relieve the pain had grown into a necessity."' The first sentence is not supported by the source.

I really don't want to fail this GA, so before I go on, do you want to check for yourself that everything is cited correctly? It looks as if in multi-sentence citations, like this one and the one for FN 27 above, the earlier sentences need checking to see if additional citations are needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through the article. Although an experienced editor who has helped with other GAN, this is my first nomination, so this has been a learning experience for me. Peaceray (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry; just let me know when you're ready for me to take another look. Overall the article is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Peaceray, just checking in to see how it's going. Are you ready for me to take another look yet? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on a couple sections, specifically the two relationship sections & the Ill health and death section. I have been away volunteering & camping this weekend, but I feel the end is in sight. Hang on for a for a few more days, please. I have been at it daily but had a slowdown. I should be able to pick up the pace through this week. Peaceray (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I'll have somewhat limited internet access till Thursday morning in any case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a just a little more work to do in the Relationships sections. From seeking out references, I recently read more detail about the prolonged engagement of Siddal & Rossetti & their temporary estrangement when she went to Sheffield where she lived with cousins. Narratively, I think it makes more sense to move the Artwork and poetry section to after the Pre-Raphaelite model section & to combine the Relationship with Rossetti & Relationship with Rossetti's family and marriage sections. Everything else out of the Relationship section is ready for citation review. I think I can be finished altogether this weekend. Peaceray (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. I'll hold off till you're done; there's no hurry, and it's probably best if I review the finished product anyway. I should have time on Monday to take a look if you're done by then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Everything should be referenced now. There may be possible improvements to the text, but right now I am a bit cross-eyed & ready to turn in for the night. Please let me know what you find. Peaceray (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read through again and have just one more comment:

  • "Their ideas of female beauty were fundamentally influenced by her, or that she personified these ideals." Grammatically this doesn't work, but also we need a statement like this in the body of the article, since per WP:LEAD everything in the lead should also be in the body.

More spotchecks:

  • FNs 98 & 99 cite "A retrospective of Siddal's work was curated by Jan Marsh in 1991 at the Ruskin Gallery in Sheffield." Verified.
  • FN 63 cites "Although Ruskin urged Rossetti to marry in 1855". Verified.
  • FN 21 cites "A third account has Deverell accompanying his mother to the millinery where he noticed Siddal in the back of the shop." Verified -- the link in the footnote goes to the right page of the source, but it should be labelled p. 35, not p. 30.
  • FN 7 cites "At the time of her birth, her father had a cutlery-making business." Verified.

The spotchecks are all good, so once you've fixed the issue above with the lead, I can pass this for GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last fix is good; passing. Congratulations! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 BorgQueen (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Image for first hook: Rossetti's 1860 portrait of Siddal
Image for first hook: Rossetti's 1860 portrait of Siddal
Image for ALT1 hook: Siddal in Ophelia by Millais
Image for ALT1 hook: Siddal in Ophelia by Millais

Improved to Good Article status by Peaceray (talk). Self-nominated at 21:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Siddal; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

"Elizabeth Ambatukam Siddall" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Elizabeth Ambatukam Siddall has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 31 § Elizabeth Ambatukam Siddall until a consensus is reached. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Siddal&oldid=1216413855"