Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caravaggio/archive1

Caravaggio edit

A compelling article about an interesting and influential artist. >>sparkit|TALK<< 14:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Yes, but ... rather a paucity of footnotes for so many listed references. The French article is nice (was it the model? Update: seems from the talk page that it was) but it cannot just be copied as we need to see references here. Also, the references the article cites — two TV shows and a magazine piece — are not the best when there are many books available that are listed.

And something has to be done about this monster sentence in the intro: Caravaggio's gift to his large circle of cultured patrons (and almost all his paintings were for individual patrons, even when those patrons intended to donate them to churches), his novelty, was a radical naturalism which combined close physical observation with a dramatic, even theatrical, approach to chiaroscuro, the use of light and shadow. Pull out that parenthetical and find somewhere where it flows better in the writing.

~~Lastly, there does not seem to have been a peer review~~. Daniel Case 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See peer review here Wikipedia:Peer_review/Caravaggio >>sparkit|TALK<< 04:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seems like they had a problem with the paucity of references too that still hasn't been addressed. Also, it's a good idea to at least put the template linking to the PR on the talk page ... that's the first place I look if one isn't linked here. Daniel Case 15:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to agree on the lack of footnotes/references. Some points are going to be difficult to get good references for - the finding of that death certificate, for example - but I'll do what I can. PiCo 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - you may be in the process of revising the article right now (and once you're done, I'll take a look at it again), but the footnotes section is mainly empty, the chronology of major works is blank (save for the main article link), and the refs section is badly formatted. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following comments were made after FAC closed

the chronology of major works is blank (save for the main article link), DOH. It's supposed to be Palx 07:46, July 10, 2006 (UTC)

Support. The article now has 30 references, and the sources are reputable. Invites comparison with Diego Velázquez, an FA, with which it compares very favourably indeed. [talk to the] HAM 19:24, July 18, 2006 (UTC)

Object. ~~There's seems to be a lack of coherence in the intro. See "In 1606 he killed another young man in a brawl". Another?~~ Fwend 16:14, August 13, 2006 (UTC)