Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Third of May 1808

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 00:25, 24 April 2008.

The Third of May 1808 edit

Self-nominator Major painting by Goya, and 200th anniversary of the event depicted will be May 3, 2008. I may not be able to participate fully in the copyedit process, but others with significant knowledge who have already contributed (Johnbod, Ceoil, Ewulp, Modernist, and Outriggr) will, hopefully, be available. JNW (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articlestats:

Ceoil 205

Johnbod 115

Modernist 82

JNW 55

Noetica 44

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the instructions at WP:FAC, were the principle editors consulted prior to nomination? Ceoil indicates (below) that nomination wasn't expected so soon: should the nom be withdrawn? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one suggested the nomination yesterday (JNW talk) - mainly I admit in hopes getting the main page on the 200th anniversary. The stats are I think rather misleading due to different editing styles. The recent expansion was by JNW, after which we other 3 and others have been adding & polishing. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see (wondering why it isn't a co-nom, then?). Thanks, John. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged Outrriggr for a ce last night. If he responds its all achedimic. [I caurnt spell, and dont want to be held to it!]. Ceoil (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if the article was submitted for FA status too quickly, and without proper consultation. This was due, in part, and as Johnbod explained, to my eagerness to prepare the item for the main page by May 3, and to my inexperience in this process. As we say in academic circles, my bad. JNW (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any language or style issues. In fact, I can't write this well :) I enjoyed Simon Schama's program on this painting, and learned so much more from this article. Beautiful. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, I was skimming and missed some things. There still is a lot of beautiful language. I'll look again after your copyedit ... looking forward to it! - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESOLVED STUFF --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not entirely happy with the prose. To be candid, it is clunky and inelegant in places. It has all the hallmarks of a piece which has been worked on fragment by fragment by many editors, with no one editor giving it a close copy-edit from top to bottom for coherence and style. This now needs doing (probably a day's work). Here are a few examples (and they serve only as examples):

The circumstances precipitating The Third of May constituted a personal crisis for Goya The point is lost here.
It is not known whether Goya was witness to either the rebellion or the reprisals,[15] although many attempts have been made to establish him as a witness to the events of both days. This could probably be reduced by a third and made clearer.
Civilian Spanish opposition continued for the following five years of the Peninsular War; in the original guerrilla war, from which the term derives,[7] irregular Spanish forces considerably aided the Spanish and British armies led by Wellington, who first landed in Portugal in August 1808. Too much information crammed into one rambling, repetitive sentence.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger, copy edit is underway. ~~Nomination was not expected quite so soon;)~~ Ceoil (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much improved. A couple of small points:

In "his memoirs of the Royal Academy", I presume by Royal Academy you mean the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando (Royal Academy of Fine Arts) in Madrid? By an odd coincidence, I created the stub for that :)
The 2006 exhibition was a joint Prado/Reina Sofia exhibition, with The Third of May, Guernica, and the Execution of the Emperor Maximilian in the same room at the Reina Sofia not the Prado. (Honest, I went.)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link re you first point. The second, I think does not need to be spelled out in full? Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of accuracy it might be best to get the venue right :) I've tweaked it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Roger and Ceoil for clarifying and linking to the Real Academia. The reference I used was not more specific, so I appreciate the elaboration. JNW (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my apologies, Rodger; I misunderstood what you were saying. Ceoil (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - web links checked out okay, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! Thanks Ealdgyth. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been fully copyedited by a number of editors, most notably by Noetica[1]. Ceoil (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O Ceoil, not fully! I have more to do, and will get on with it tomorrow (Australian Eastern Standard Time). Interesting article. I'll have my say here when I've copyedited more.[See below.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T–]

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine Noetica, we cant spell, but we can waite. Ceoil (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the third paragraph in the "Description" section and the following paragraphs in The Disasters of War section seem out of place. I think the flow would be better going from description to provenance, and then on to "Relationship to other works" or some such. Jfire (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—As usual from these editors, it's among our best work. (I think I tweaked a bit of it before nomination.) Tony (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another excellent painting article that has my strong commendation. I would now urge editors not to overwork it, and simply to protect it from any new editing that is not up to standard. It should pass as it is right now, I say.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted by your enthusiasm but don't you think you should declare your interest as a copy-editor of this? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, I made–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!'s involement fairly clear above. Ceoil (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I only did some late polishing, at Ceoil's request. And that has recently been documented at the head, and in remarks above.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - top-notch. Yomangani ^talk 09:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great article that I'm proud I took part off. I did a minor copy edit. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 10:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, Mm40. Ceoil (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any time, Ceoil. Or anyone else. I'll copy edit anything you ask me to. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 15:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly added Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#May_3 before something else applied. Not sure of the style there - do you remove the footnotes etc? Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove it; the instructions there are clear, and that just makes Raul's job harder. I've alerted him on his talk page to this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, removed. Diff here if anyone wants to see [2]. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johnbod :-) I'm sure Raul and others will appreciate that, as that page is quite the hassle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to come back and read the article again, but I'm really tied up with style guidelines and other stuff, and seriously...some of our best writers, and passed by Tony and Noetica? And some of the language was really beautiful the first time I skimmed it. If it were possible to support it without reading it, I would :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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