Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fragment of a Crucifixion/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2017 [1].

Fragment of a Crucifixion[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post war horror by the painter Francis Bacon. The article rightfully went down in flames a few months ago, since then I am most grateful to Wehwalt especially for reviewing on talk. The painting is overwhelmingly nihilist, and fittingly was a thematic dead end outside of the emphasis on the screaming mouth. Bacon went in a completely different direction after this; the article is thus slight, but is a comprehensive summary of this once off direct depiction of the logical end of existentialism. His later work reflects the same bleakness, but was never again so literal. Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

I know less than I would like to about the history of art, but I have some familiarity with Bacon. I used to visit the Ulster Museum a lot, and this houses his Head II.

  • I think you and I have slightly different comma philosophies, so I'll avoid commenting on comma use unless it seems particularly problematic to me.
  • Is the predatory animal a he or an it? Also, there's some slight repetition in the second paragraph of the lead.
    Its an it. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he did not believe in either divine intervention nor an afterlife" How about "he believed in neither divine intervention nor an afterlife", perhaps with some links?
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the description section could start with some very basic information? "Fragment of a Crucifixion is a [whatever] painting measuring [whatever]"? It seems to jump straight in to tricky material! In particular, it seems to assume information in the lead, where as I am inclined to think that a description section should be relatively free-standing; the figures, the cross, etc. can be introduced anew.
    Have simplified the lead as much as I could, moving thing around, but its a very dense article, with not much levity. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "catholic" Shouldn't that be Catholic? (Also, would raised not be more accurate than born?)
    Done Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "religious believe...he would go for them" belief? Also, check spacing?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in of itself" and?
    This is a quote Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the whole art of Francis Bacon."" Check MOS:LQ.
    Dont follow Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Punctuation should be outside of speech marks, except in a few special cases as outlined at MOS:LQ. I was asking if you could double-check this particular use. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more imbued with pathos" Link?
    Dont follow Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "pathos" is not a word that you would hear down the pub; I was suggesting a wikilink to our article on the subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and weighted heavily throughout his career" What does weighted mean, here?
    "Weighted" removed Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bacon's patron and then lover" I think this means "Bacon's patron who later become his lover", rather than "Bacon's patron and, at that time, lover" which would be "Bacon's patron and then-lover". Does that make sense?
    Yes agree, and reworded Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1512–16 "Isenheim Altarpiece" and" Why quotemarks?
    Fixed Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The loosely opened mouth in the seventeenth-century painting is taut in Bacon's image." I'm struggling with this.
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maquettefor King and Queen" Spacing?
    Eek Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bacon's devoutly atheist and nihilistic outlook" Is "devoutly atheist" an oxymoron? It strikes me as a little non-neutral.
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bacon was his own harshest critic" Also a little non-neutral

Fascinating read. Hope these comments are helpful. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J; your edits are very solid and thanks for the comments. Re devoutly atheist; thats probably even underselling, he was far more so than I claim here. I'm ok with such a bold claim here. Otherwise, agree with all..working through. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that "devout atheist", if not an oxymoron, is definitely off. "Committed atheist" would work better all around. —swpbT 13:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like that, for what it's worth. I don't mind stressing the strength of commitment, it's just the word "devout" that I'm not sold on. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that committed is beter but left just as "atheist" in the end. Thanks again for the review - almost there....Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn can you take another look pls. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, taking another look through:

  • "focusing on the open mouth." How about something like "focusing on the motif of an open mouth." (preferably with a link to Motif (visual arts) or similar)
Done Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he did not believe in either divine intervention nor an afterlife" Surely this should be "he did not believe in either divine intervention or an afterlife". If you want to use nor, it'd be something like "he believed in neither divine intervention nor an afterlife"
Your wording is better - done. Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I said this earlier, but I'm not wild with opening the description section with "the upper figure". I think it'd be better to start with a general description of the painting so that the description section can be a little more free-standing.
  • "Blood pours its mouth" Some missing words? out of, perhaps?
ok, done Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its almost a faith in of itself" Are these definitely the original words? If so, perhaps you could add "[and]" so that it flows a little better.
Revisited source and done Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Odessa Steps sequence" Why italics?
ok, done Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mouth is loosely opened mouth in Rubens' painting, but taut in Bacon's. The legs folded out of view and the left arm are passive in the Rubens, but in the Bacon are in violent motion, seemingly wildly flailing up and down." I'm not keen on this; the way you refer to "the mouth", for example, seems to take for granted that it's the same mouth in both paintings. How about something like "The mouth in Rubens' painting is loosely opened, but the mouth in Bacon's is taut. The main figure's legs are folded out of view and the figure's left arm is passive in Rubens' painting, but in the Bacon's painting the chimera's legs and arms are in violent motion, seemingly wildly flailing up and down."
Done Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bacon was his own harshest critic" I'm not keen; it feels slightly non-neutral and overly idiomatic.
ok, done Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was an issue with which Bacon struggled throughout his career, to both create imagery that would be instantly recognisable, immediate and directly involving for the viewer, while also staying loyal to his creed of producing "non-illustrative painting"." How about "This was an issue with which Bacon struggled throughout his career: he aimed to create imagery that would be instantly recognisable, immediate and directly involving for the viewer, while also staying loyal to his creed of producing "non-illustrative painting"."
ok, done Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but a more direct invocation of imagery of the slaughterhouse and slabs of meat." This suggestions that Fragment is itself an "invocation of imagery of the slaughterhouse and slabs of meat", though a less direct one than Three Studies. If this is the case, perhaps this needs to be mentioned elsewhere. If not, I think this final line needs to be tweaked.
Done Ceoil (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is helpful... Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were fine. About half ways through the latter points, and tkx. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I don't claim to be an expert on painting but I do have a weakness for fantastic imagery, and a Bacon piece usually fits the bill... Copyedited so pls let me know if I've misunderstood anything, or if you simply disagree with my changes. Outstanding points:

  • I would've expected BritEng for Bacon, but notice "modeled" and "center"...
  • "...its form merged with pictures Bacon kept of bats" -- sorry does this mean Bacon used some of his actual pictures of bats in the painting (like a collage) or simply that he took inspiration from his pictures of bats?
    Ended up taking this out. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first Peppiatt quote, is the ungrammatical "its" in the original, or is it a typo in our article?
    Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it, but I'll keep an eye on proceedings since it's early days. Structure and level of detail seem fair to me, and I was fine with the tone, but will hold off support until image and source reviews are in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...have most. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got them all. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, now that the source and image reviews are done and I've checked changes since my last edit, happy to support -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • Support I did a review for the first FAC, they were posted here. Those look to be addressed, or moot. A few fresh comments:
  • "The prey unsuccessfully struggles to flee from its capture." It seems likely to me you mean "captor"
  • "at what may be a beach or seaside resort." this may puzzle the American reader, since they would use them almost interchangeably.
  • "Bacon was born a catholic," caps?
  • "He kept a photographic still of a close-up of the nurse shown screaming in panic and terror, with broken pince-nez spectacles hanging from her blood stained face." I might cut "a photographic still of"
I won't say I admire the work of art. But the article is admirable ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, got these. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by caeciliusinhorto[edit]

I reviewed this at the previous nomination; it has massively improved since then, so good job!

  • The first paragraph in §Description seems a little topsy-turvy to me: we hear about the link with the Crucifixion, and the positioning of the creatures on the cross first; only then do we move on to the description of the creatures and the cross as individual elements.
    Now restructured. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the mid-ground, the artist has sketched a street scene, which features walking stick figures and cars, at what may be a beach or seaside resort.[6] the reference given supports that there are stick figures and cars in the mid-ground, which is obvious to me from looking at the image, but not that it is at a beach or resort, which is not. Where does that interpretation come from?
    I ended up taking this out about the resort. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The motif was developed from sources including [...] Matthias Grünewald [...]. Not knowing who Grunewald was, it was not at all clear to me on first reading what this meant. Having clicked on his link, I see he was an artist: did his works include screaming mouths? I'm still not entirely sure how he inspired the motif of the screaming mouth...
  • Horizontal frames often featured in Bacon's 1950s and 1960s paintings. The motif may have been borrowed from the sculptor[...] Henry Moore The only Moore sculpture with such a horizontal frame I can think of is the Maquette for King and Queen mentioned in the article, but this postdates Fragment of a Crucifixion. It's possible that I'm forgetting a Moore, though.
    Removed. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few queries, but the article definitely in much better shape than I last saw it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: there is an archived version of the artandreligion.de page available here. I have added a link in the article; Ceoil might want to reformat it to fit in with their scheme. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for finding this, and for both reviews. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Thanks for the spots, especially re Moore. Can you take another look. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good to me. Happy to support.

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • 1950 canvas by the Irish-born, English figurative painter Francis Bacon. - might be worthwhile to link figurative art
  • Blood pours from the animal's mouth onto the head and body of its prey, a chimera rendered as owl-like with human facial characteristics. - I feel like these characteristics should be introduced when you first name the lower figure as a chimera, not the second mention
  • not returning to it until the more loosely based, but equally horrific triptych, Three Studies for a Crucifixion. - the use of horrific seems out of place here, more opinion than anything
  • Went with "bleak", which I think is ok as its a well worn trope when talking about Bacon Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • body of the chimera, or hybrid bird,[10] - You didn't mention a hybrid bird in the lead
  • I say "as owl-like with human facial characteristics". Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • His referred to the still in paintings throughout his career.[14] - Is this meant to say He rather than his?
  • He admitted that, "When I was younger, I needed extreme subject-matter. Now I don't." - citation after a direct quote?
  • The Barker reference should probably have an accessdate too.
  • References all seem reliable.

A short, but fascinating article. The prose is very, very good, so these are just a few nitpicks before I can support. ceranthor 02:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ceranthor 21:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes artandreligion.de a high quality reliable source? I'll note that I could NOT get the site to load, even trying a number of workarounds.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows some spots that probably need to be looked at and possibly reworded.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Will get to these this evening. Ceoil (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have reworded some. Re:artandreligion.de; see archive link added by User:Caeciliusinhorto above. Friedhelm Mennekes' resume is here, and he has a de wiki bio here. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pbsouthwood[edit]

(I am commenting from the point of view of a lay reader not expert in artistic convention or critical style.}

Lead

  • The upper figure, which may be a dog or a cat, grips a chimera with its mouth - This is not apparent from a visual inspection of the image. There seems to be a significant gap between the head of the upper figure and the nearest obvious part of the lower figure. What part of the lower figure is the upper figure claimed to be gripping with its mouth?

Description

  • The upper creature is modelled on a dog or a cat, its form merged with pictures Bacon kept of bats - Are you sure it is the upper creature that has a "form merged with pictures Bacon kept of bats", as the lower creature actually looks more bat-like to me? If so, how is its form merged with pictures of bats? I do not see it.
  • Have taken this bit out. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • at what may be a seaside resort - This does not appear to be supported by the adjacent reference (ref name=gs (Gemma Sharpe))
    Removed Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks OK, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imagery and sources:

  • Bacon was born a Catholic, ... - How can one be born a Catholic?
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now the lead says he was an atheist and Imagery and sources says he was a Catholic. I don't think it is technically possible to be both at the same time, but he could change from one to the other. It seems likely that he was brought up/indoctrinated to be a Catholic, and may actually have been one for some time, but lost faith and ended up an atheist, but I have not read the sources. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifixion

  • Crucifixion scenes appear from Bacon's earliest works, and appeared frequently heavily throughout his career. - What does frequently heavily mean?
    Reworded - "appeared frequently throughout" Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support An enjoyable read. I've made a couple of very minor formatting changes and am happy to support (my review "disclaimer" here). – SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Schro. V nice to see you around. Ceoil (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: J Milburn and Ceoil, how are we doing in getting through Josh's last comments? And Ian (sorry, another ping!) did you want another look at this? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very busy at the moment; I can't promise that I will have time to take another proper look at the article for a few days. I of course have no objection to this being promoted in the mean time; I am certainly not opposing the nomination! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with it, see above. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have one or two issues raised by Josh to complete; should be able to close out tomorrow evening. Ceoil (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, that's fine. If you ping me when you've done those, we can close this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sarastro1, have resolved these now. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that there is no alt text. While not an explicit FA requirement, I always think we should illustrate best practice. But that's not worth holding up this FAC over. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fragment_of_a_Crucifixion/archive2&oldid=1086353776"