Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 17:31, 25 May 2007.

Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion

edit

Usually considered the first mature painting by the artist Francis Bacon. Very helpfull peer review here. Ceoil 23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Urgent need for collaborators who can copy-edit. Lead: Glaring spelling mistake at the top. I don't like "The work represents a summary of themes explored in Bacon's previous paintings", and I don't Bacon would; can it be reworded? "as well as and his interpretations" ... Huh? "When first exhibited in 1945, the triptych caused a sensation, and helped establish Bacon's reputation as one of England’s foremost post-war painters." Remove the second comma. "Helped establish Baon as one of" is better. Russell quote—can you give us the year in the main sentence? The lead says nothing of the stylistic features of the work, either in relation to his other work or that of his fellow artists.
Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations. It's a fascinating topic, and the contributor(s) has so much valuable knowledge. Let's not waste it. Tony 08:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic case of being too close to an article. I'll ask around for a fresh set of eyes to give it a once over. Thanks for the other suggestions, the lead is now much improved. Ceoil 13:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In just two edits, User:Outriggr has ce'd half the article. Ceoil 19:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outriggr § has completed an extensive copyedit, and a very fine job he did too. The prose are greatly improved. Ceoil 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I am happy that Outriggr has dealt with the copy issues, but your comment re the absence of an examination of the stylistic features in the opening is also valid. I think this would warrant expanding the lead to three paras, and I'll work on that. Ceoil 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Universe=atom
  • The title should be in bold and italics (bold because it is the name of the article; italics because it is the name of a painting)
I disagree. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Universe=atom is right. For example, see Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers). I'm surprise I never noticed that it wasn't italicized before. I'll fix it right now. WesleyDodds 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a small matter, but fair enough. Ceoil 20:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout most of the article (except the lead and a short strip in the middle) there are hardly any internal links. (wikilinks).
And the article is all the stronger for it. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Internal linking is only meant to link to articles that are relevant, and the article conforms to this. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: rationing the links ensures that the high-value ones aren't diluted, and adds to the overall appearance. Tony 12:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should not overlinked; see WP:CONTEXT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no "See Also" section, which, combined with the lack of wikilinks, literally isolates the article from the rest of Wikipedia.
See also what? I created a FB Category:Francis Bacon (painter) category specifically because I think "see also" sections are weak. If the links are not mentioned in the body text, they do not deserve inclusion. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having a "See Also" section isn't an FA requirement. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also is not required and should be minimized; See WP:GTL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only three links in the "External Links" section. Perhaps some more should be put; be sure, though, not to overdo it.
The external links point only towards relevant articles. I see no reason to populate them with tangently related pages. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having an "External links" section isn't an FA requirement. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External links should be minimized; See WP:EL and WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely no picture in the "Second Version of 'Triptych 1944' (1988)" section, which fails to give an illustration of the second version.
The "Second Version" is illustrated in the linked main article. It's a triptych, and would not align within a short paragraph. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures aren't an FA requirement. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the lead can be elongated by a small factor.
What would you think is missing. The lead, in my opinion, is a concise summary of a relatively short article. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, these comments should be disregarded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering these points, my vote is OPPOSE. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 19:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I think you are objecting on very minor points, and I get the feeling you did not read the article. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think the person who objected should read the featured article criteria, and his objection discounted on the grounds that most of his complaints fail to conform to the criteria. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This oppose should be disregarded; I also suggest the reviewer needs to become more familiar with WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Invalid oppose. — Deckiller 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from others
  • Support Meets all the FA criteria in my opinion, and I found it to be a rather interesting read. LuciferMorgan 02:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support—once the copy-editing has been completed. — Deckiller 16:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The copyediting has gone a long way in addressing some issues I was about to post about. My few remaining concerns:
1. "While these early works may be aesthetically pleasing," sounds too weasel-y to me.
2. "Bacon's critical faculties often frustrated his creative spontaneity during this period". Simplify language.
3. "He continued to incorporate the spatial device he was to use many times throughout his career—three lines radiating from the central figure of Crucifixion, 1933." This is somewhat confusing. Do you mean Crucifixion, 1933 was the first example of Bacon's use of this device?
4. Is there a particular reason to as "the Second World War"? Just Wikilinking it to World War II would be more direct (and the term needs to be wikilinked eariler in the article; it's currently linked after the term's already been mentioned.)
That's about it. Once that's all fixed I'll be happy to support the nomination. WesleyDodds 00:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have fixed 1, 2 & 3; not so sure about 4 - to me "Though the triptych may be informed by World War II; the art critic Ziva Amishai-Maisseles has observed that.." - seems not quite right. Ceoil 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's nice to see a detailed treatment of an artwork, and this is in very fine shape. (Coeil asked me to copyedit this, and I have done so.) The following could be improved:
    • The Tate Gallery's essay gets into the psychodynamics of the artist. This is absent here.
    • Reference formatting: "Baldassari (2005), p.134" and the like -> "Baldassari (2005), p. 134."
    • The reference to "Grünewald's Christ Carrying the Cross" seems wrong - the title would appear to be Mocking of Christ, which is also referred to in the article, leading the reader to believe you're talking about two paintings.
    • The quote that has "mind shut snap" I'm assuming should be "mind snap shut". –Outriggr § 06:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outriggr, thanks for all the help; I've fixed the errors you noted, and yes a para or two on the psychodynamics is needed - they were very complex indeed. There is suggestion in other sources that the triptych was inspired by the sence of liberty allowed him through his father's death, as well as the chaos of WWII; both of which allowed him to feel free enough to make this breakthrough. Sutherland was a father figure and his mentor until this point, as soon as the triptych was a sucess he cut the older painter off. The Popes of the 1950s were erotic representations of father figures, plain and simple. Go figure. That's an article all of its own, right there. Ceoil 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The prose has been drastically improved, and everything else was solid to begin with. Great article. WesleyDodds 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a complete novice I very much enjoyed the prose, the article is well illustrated and well referenced. Good work. The Rambling Man 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ceoil asked me to copyedit, but I was too late to the party. A good read on an interesting painting. Yomanganitalk 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Three_Studies_for_Figures_at_the_Base_of_a_Crucifixion&oldid=1145618110"