Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Funerary art/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:55, 4 May 2010 [1].

Funerary art edit

Nominator(s): Johnbod, Madman2001 and myself. • Ling.Nut 14:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Funerary art/archive1

Funerary art, a well-researched article and the product of a true collaboration, brings to the public a survey of the best sources and a representative sampling of the practices of cultures from around the world. For those of you who like your FAC noms to be somehow outside the standard mould, the article offers an academic slant on a cool topic.• Ling.Nut 14:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reordered the Ancient Egypt section, adding a paragraph or two and retitling it "Ancient Egypt and Nubia". I didn't mention the Sphinx, partially because as Johnbod said it' s not clear what function it performed, and partially because it's almost 2am. The section could use other eyes... • Ling.Nut 17:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are entire sections and entire paragraphs without citations and many paragraphs without a closing citation. As well, the citations are not consistent with 2C. All of this was found in 45 seconds. --Brad (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I recommend actually reading the article too? Some material has been very recently added, and still is being, further to requests from Pt 1. Other sections namecheck links to other articles saying only things that are unlikely to be challenged. Feel free to tag anything that you think really needs a ref - I don't say there aren't any such places. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to read the entire article when it fails one of the fundamental requirements for FA. 2C is no consistency with the referencing. You have combinations of "Bonnefoy, pp. 133-137", "Levey 1967, 57–59", "Boardman et al, 688&ndas;9", "Welch, 26", "Hall, 15, 35 78" etc. Citations need to be consistent to one style and not a psychedelic mix. Pay attention to where you need to use commas, periods and endashes. When this is fixed then there is a reason to read further. --Brad (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are now all fixed, so you'll have to read the article now. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing citations are required? That's a new one on me. But I'll salt 'n pepper with refs... and btw, what does "not consistent with 2c" mean? • Ling.Nut 01:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're no where near fixed. I noticed that another editor brought up this same issue during the last FA pass and it's still a problem. There does not seem to be any effort by the nominators to correct this. An article in this condition should be withdrawn from the FAC process. --Brad (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous commenter (Ucucha) was happy with the changes made & struck his comment. I notice the number of refs was increased by 25% during the period covered by "There does not seem to be any effort by the nominators to correct this" and is (updated May 4th) currently 100% higher than when Brad first commented. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations have been standardized. You'll have to give examples on referencing; linked, and often well-known dickdefs do not need a reference, at least in the opinion of the nominators, at least until they are challenged. The article currently has 137 citations, and a considerable number have been added recently. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a further run through the cites and the biblio. Some, though not all, of my changes can be seen here. Perhaps Brad would like to take another look? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that! Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said on the previous it cannot possibly accomodate the variations and exceptions - nevertheless it is an admirable job, to try to appease the criticisms, but in doing so it ends up like an Asian template - its all there but for what purpose? (I vehemently oppose the existence Asian templates on the basis that they include totally unrelatable sub regions in a one size fits all scope template as if a single attribute 'geography' binds the incongruities) Similarly here - I am not supporting or opposing, I am just wondering when the penny drops somewhere and someone realises that to have separate articles could solve quite a lot of issues - it clearly has not really hit any of the article editors yet - as the extent of 'defending' the article and stretching it seems to be the main energy consumer. Satu Suro 03:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this conversation before. Ideally, every section of this article would simply be a little WP:Summary that would have a {{main}} link to a heart-pounding, leg-tingling FA-quality article with expert-level accuracy and comprehensiveness and Pulitzer-prize winning prose. That would be wiki-paradise. Unfortunately, few if any of the relevant articles exist. If any do exist, I'd be quite surprised if any are legitimately beyond "C" on the qualify scale. SO... let's deal with reality, shall we? If we break this article up, what do we accomplish? The costs are far weightier than the benefits. The benefits are... well, there's only one: we've satisfied some Procrustean vision of organizational purity in article construction. By doing so, we have perhaps made one or two (I doubt there's more than two) editors happy. What are the costs? The costs are that you have won the battle but lost the war. Breaking this up would result in six or eight sad, scattered little nubbins of STUB articles. These will languish undeveloped until the heat death of the sun, simply because no one will notice them. The current approach puts them all in one place to attract editorial attention; if the article gets the bronze star, it will be an even better advertisement for the topic.• Ling.Nut 07:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

As always, positions get somewhat overstated. I'm pretty sure we'll get there in 250 Ma, and LingNut should know that that is long before the heat death of the sun :-). Satu: "it clearly has not really hit any of the article editors yet".. well, yes i think it has, they just don't agree. Neither do i on this point. But I do agree with Brad. Reference all the major facts and I would probably be a support. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmigod (as my teenagers used to say), good luck to you all from your different planets - as a dark underground troglodyte with serious interest in tagging category talk pages - I never thought that I was in a battle/war - (ling nut) t this is a good article - but ideally - some subsidiary would be useful - (you do get a bit loquacious unnecessarily) for example - the christian section is potentially a stand alone article - and I dont think it would be sad :) Satu Suro 11:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree re christian funerary art section! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brad: I sorta think "psychedelic" is... overstated. Are there a few problems with commas? I suggest {{sofixit}}. Content reviewers are editors too...
Dear Satu: battle? war? Where does this language come from? I see neither... The point remains: Break this article up, you'll have many stubs that will be completely forgotten by everyone.
- The more you guys play with it, I couldnt disagree more with you Satu Suro 03:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I don't wanna uglify the article as I work on the sections that we feel are under-referenced. Similar to the way I handled the Egyptian/Nubian section, I'm temporarily working in User:Ling.Nut/Sandbox2. If anybody wants to help, please do be my ghost. • Ling.Nut 16:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why haven't Totem Poles of North America been discussed and the burial mounds of the Mississippian culture? I am glad to see the Egyptian section expanded to include the pyramids although I still think the Sphinx should be discussed...Modernist (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have added the mounds, although only some appear to have been anything to do with burials at all, & apart from the mounds themselves, they don't seem to have many artifacts within. With totem-poles a connection with burial seems only speculative in respect of earlier ones. We have to stay focused on the subject here. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this site Etowah Indian Mounds and the effigies found there, the article mentions that some Totem Poles were mortuary markers and they all seem to me to be interesting artworks. Although I agree it all seems speculative and unclear...Modernist (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went with Grave Creek Mound, which is nice & big, & certainly a burial site. More could be added on the matter, with clearer sources, but they are in there anyway. Really we are supposed to be covering art made specifically for burials rather than normal life stuff buried with people, but when the experts aren't sure of the situation it's difficult. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metairie Cemetery in New Orleans is famous for its monuments and funerary art...Modernist (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the one in Easy Rider? We have Père Lachaise Cemetery in a caption, but the Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno would definitely be the next to add - perhaps I should. Ok done that - I think you have to hand the top slot to the Italians. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think its the one in Easy Rider, amazing place...Modernist (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I agree that there probably needs to be several related articles; this one which attempts to cover all cultures cannot provide all the depth needed in such a short format. A volume perhaps...Modernist (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like this article, but I'm not really qualified to evaluate the quality of most of it. As to to the Christianity section, I can refer you to a few articles that I wrote (the Tomb of Antipope John XXIII has already been mentioned) when I took an interest in the limited topic of papal tombs a while ago. I leave it up to the authors to decide whether to link to or incorporate this material, as I acknowledge that papal funerary art is only a small component of Christian funerary art. My main criticism would be that this section is written with somewhat of a Catholic focus (e.g. "The Catacombs of Rome contain most of the Christian art of the Early Christian period"...this seems to conflate Early Christianity with the church of Rome). Also, "St. Peter's"--the article linked to--is hardly an early Christian structure. St. Peter's tomb or Old St. Peter's Basilica might be more appropriate. Savidan 07:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That "The Catacombs of Rome contain most of the Christian art of the Early Christian period" is simply a fact (depending slightly on the period that is assumed to cover, which we don't go into); there are no other sources with anything like the quantity of works, and mostly rediscovered in good and unaltered condition. Talking about non-Catacomb Christian art and even churches from before 300, or even later, is notoriously mostly a matter of using literary references and speculation, with the odd exception like Dura Europos on the eastern border with Persia. See the first chapters of the Syndicus book cited, or Beckwith's Penguin/Yale history of art volume on the subject. After that you go to a handful of remnants of mosaic schemes etc, many heavily restored, from grand, often Imperial, buildings from the period of Constantine on, many in fact also in Rome. The context in which St Peter's is mentioned is "... building churches, most famously St Peter's, Rome, over the burial place of martyrs..." so it is the site rather than a particular building that is the point. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your point is that Rome contains most of the extant Christian art of that period, that may be true. However, I fail to find a single mention of Eastern Christian funerary art in the entire article, with the exception of a single uncited footnote. Savidan 19:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably the case, though most of what is said, at least for the earlier period, covers East and West equally. Do you have anything particular in mind that should be mentioned? There is generally much less monumental funerary art in Eastern Christianity, a point that might be made, especially if you have a reference - nothing like the wall-tomb tradition. Most of the very plain sarcophagi of the Russian Tsars sit in two cathedrals in Moscow or Petersburg arrayed like cars in a car park. see here and here. This article is a tour d'horizon and does not aspire to cover equally all the world at all periods. The rather later Armenian Khachkars could be mentioned, although I think they were initially mostly not funerary, but later used for this, rather like the Celtic cross. I'll add "surviving" to the catacombs bit anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a short paragraph on Byzantine sarcophagi, & the List of extant papal tombs to See also. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing I know about Eastern Christianity is that some Western Christians tend to write as though it didn't exist. I did a quick google books search and found Death and religion in a changing world by Kathleen Garces-Foley, which contrasts eastern and western practices. The extent to which this and other sources may be relevant I do not know. It seems axiomatic, though, that if Funerary art is virtually non-existent in some cultures that you might mention that in the article. I am generally a fan of your articles, but I am troubled by the "tour d'horizon" concept. It can be difficult call to make with articles that cover large topics, but I tend to prefer an article that is complete in its scope. If daughter articles are necessary, I do not ask that you write them, but only that this one represents the level of detail that would be appropriate for the main article on a large topic. Savidan 00:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of "practices" but far fewer funerary works of art than in the Western tradition, though even here the tradition is now in steep decline for private burials - Bill Gates will not I think end up under a large sculpted memorial, though there is hope for Silvio Berlusconi. I should add this when I have refs. I can hardly be accused of ignoring EC art, on which I have written quite a few articles. The book you mention is almost entirely about ceremonies or liturgy, which we are not covering, but any other suggestions are welcome. You may have seen already what extremely slim pickings a gbooks search on "Eastern Orthodox" + "funerary art" produces! The lead mentions the notable absence of a Hindu tradition, & there are mentions elsewhere of absences, though these can be tricky to reference. From my POV a big problem with WP coverage of art & many other topics is that many small subject articles are good, but the big subject ones are mostly pretty poor - the FA population shows the same problem. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a superb and interesting article. The writing is great and it's nicely illustrated. I have a few quibbles, but none that affect the support:

In the lead, not sure what this means: "It can ... serve as an article for use by the dead in the afterlife ..."

Several cultures believed that things deposited in the grave could actually be used by the dead, either as they were, or after some sort of magical reconstitution. The Terracotta army is an example, also those Etruscan "actual eggs". These have already been defined as "cultural functions", so I don't think we need to make it clearer that Wikipedia does not endorse as fact the regeneration of terracotta warriors. Or do we? Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The deposit of objects with an apparent aesthetic intention goes back to the Neanderthals over 100,000 years ago ..." The footnote doesn't seem very clear on that.

I've softened the claim, & changed the date, & added this and this as refs. It does seem to be still the majority view, though hotly debated. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on unattributed quotations, as they raise the issue of why quotation marks are being used rather than rephrasing, e.g. "Household bowls, cups, and pitchers are sometimes found in the graves, along with foodstuffs such as 'actual eggs, pomegranates, honey, grapes and olives'[33] for use in the afterlife."

I don't suppose he'll claim copyright on the list, so I've removed them. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why there are separate sections on China, Korea, and Japan and only one on the Americas. And why such a long section on Christianity, which seems to overwhelm the others.

The issue of balance was raised in Part 1, and additions have been made, including some you mention, but I still think we have got the essential balance approximately right. Only what one reviewer called the "Mediterranean littoral" (Egypt, Greece, Etruria, Romans, Christians) has such a lavish and continuous tradition of monumental (ie big) sculpture on tombs, that also reaches well beyond royalty into the upper and middle classes. These areas certainly take up a large proportion of the article. East Asia's big tomb traditions are more restricted socially, but continuous over long periods, and well understood from literary sources. That is where America falls down. The first ghit on a search on "Aztec tomb" is this on what may be ""...the first look at a royal tomb in all of Central Mexico," Nichols said. "There are many things we haven't understood well—like the religion and symbolism of the Aztecs" ..." It seems a little premature to add this until they've got the slab off. For other American cultures there is big uncertainty, since almost all known finds are from burials, whether objects such as pots and figures were particularly associated with death, or just everyday stuff, favourite possessions etc, so not meeting the definition we are using. This is a problem with a great number of cultures around the world; for example the non-Egyptian Ancient Near East, which offers a striking contrast to Egypt in this respect. Believe me I have tried to expand these areas, though they are not my specialism I readily admit. In other cultures memorials of the rich were temples, mosques, churches etc in the usual style of the time & place, with a memorial inscription, and perhaps a fairly simple burial slab. These also fall outside our scope. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the second sentence here: "Some are fairly traditional, while monuments reflecting more contemporary styles include the Vietnam Veterans Memorial ... These are in notable contrast to the style of most war memorials to the military of World War II; earlier modernist memorials to the dead of World War I were sometimes removed after a time."

Just that; Mosse gives examples, though mostly WWI memorials found in decadent taste by the Nazis. I'll make it clearer. Many thanks for these comments! Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~, leaning to support.

This has come a way since nominating and looks good. I have one main overall concern: the lead does not appear to be a summary of the text, but a kind of big-picture introduction to the subject. As such, it should mostly be the actual first section of the body text - and needs cites for arguments such as "Funerary art can serve many cultural functions, although generally it is an aesthetic attempt to capture or express beliefs or emotions about the afterlife." For example, do we have sources that say that this particular purpose - "aesthetic attempt to capture or express beliefs or emotions about the afterlife" - is the general / dominant one ahead of other explanations? I ask this partly as a matter of WP policy on what the lead should be, but also as a check on OR in the lead. For example, the lead has an earlier sentence that says that grave goods may include "miniature versions of things believed to be needed in an afterlife". To the extent that funerary art is the result of preparing a person's body for the next life, I'm not sure i would call that an "aesthetic attempt to capture or express" something. The more obvious explanation in that context would seem pragmatic rather than aesthetic, and to be preparatory rather than expressive. I have no idea whether that is the case, whether it is commonly so, or not; hence my suggestion that it be cited body text, rather than uncited lead. I would support the article at FAC were this addressed. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Am I right in thinking your problems are mainly with the 2nd para? I'm not sure this was mostly mine. I'd say "an aesthetic attempt to capture or express beliefs or emotions about the afterlife" is vague enough to cover all the more specific things listed next myself (if one goes to "death and the afterlife". I don't myself see why miniature model grave goods do not fit under the phrase - they are expressing the belief that the objects will be usable in the afterlife, surely? There is obviously more of an issue when there is no belief in an afterlife. On reflection I've just cut it, and moved the psychopomps down into the "Common terms". There is a problem referencing completely global statements as there simply appear to be no art history books of the sort of quality we are trying to use that take a global approach across time & space - art historians tend to regard such treatments as for popularizion only. So we have avoided these as far as possible. I suppose I should crudely summarize the rest of the article in a new lede para, which I'll do later. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better. I think one of my concerns was the implied intentionality of the language ("aesthetic attempt to capture") - that is, implying that the intention of the creators was aesthetic, whereas the best i think we can do, with ancient examples at any rate, is to interpret the outcome. Anyway, i'm now game to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, I think I can support the article. Savidan 01:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.