Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC) [1].
Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes edit
- Notified: Amandajm, WP Visual arts, WP Vatican City, WP Christianity, WP Collections Care, Noticed by Sandy last November
Review section edit
This older FA promotion contains substantial uncited text. I'm also concerned that post-restoration maintenance efforts aren't mentioned, as it would seem logical for this article to include information on how these improvements are kept up. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately User:Amandajm, the main author is rarely around these days. But your concern "that post-restoration maintenance efforts aren't mentioned" seems odd to me. What would these consist of? What would "keeping up" consist of? The general idea is surely that you now leave the fresco well alone for a century or more, no doubt monitoring the condition every so often - probably through binoculars - they won't want to put scaffolding up again in a hurry. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnbod: - When I ran some searching before nominating this, I'm seeing that the concept of preventive restoration is talked about some with the Sistine Chapel. Sort of a "we've done the big deal, so let's do some little noninvasive stuff to keep it steady". I don't think there's a whole lot to say about this, but I'm seeing enough that I think that there probably should be some thought about including some material about the ongoing preventive conservation for this. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Links? Closing the chapel & putting up scaffolding must cost a fortune, so I imagine they tried to do everything in one go, "preventive conservation" included. I expect the article says so. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like they have some ongoing things - looks like a decent overview. Because people are in there, there's always the little bits of contamination that comes from crowds, so they apparently do minor cleanings regularly and they have this tiny cherrypicker-type thing that they use to get to them. Special LED lighting has been installed that is less harmful to the painting. This is an extremely detailed journal article discussing to great depth a high-tech HVAC system that has been installed to keep temperature, CO2, and humidity where desired, and also mentions some sensors and diffusers used. Wall Street Journal has a piece (can't tell how detailed, as it's largely paywalled), but I'm not sure that WSJ is top source for art. There seems to be a little more, as well (including what looks like a second journal article on the HVAC system, of all things). While I don't think we should devote more than a paragraph to this topic, it looks like there's enough lower-profile ongoing maintenance to be at least worth mentioning. Hog Farm Talk 18:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Links? Closing the chapel & putting up scaffolding must cost a fortune, so I imagine they tried to do everything in one go, "preventive conservation" included. I expect the article says so. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnbod: - When I ran some searching before nominating this, I'm seeing that the concept of preventive restoration is talked about some with the Sistine Chapel. Sort of a "we've done the big deal, so let's do some little noninvasive stuff to keep it steady". I don't think there's a whole lot to say about this, but I'm seeing enough that I think that there probably should be some thought about including some material about the ongoing preventive conservation for this. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, I guess. Hopefully someone will pick this up later (don't have the experience with this subject to write at an FA level on this topic). Edits since FAR opened are mainly IAbot. Hog Farm Talk 20:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Issues raised have not been fixed (yet) (t · c) buidhe 20:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, sadly. The only work has been fixing dead links so far. Hog Farm Talk 23:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist No significant work since this has been posted to FAR, except fixing the dead links. I see lots of sections that are missing citations. Z1720 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.