Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cadaver Tomb of René of Chalon/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2019 [1].

Cadaver Tomb of René of Chalon[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A life sized sculptural cadaver tomb placed over the resting place of René of Chalon (1519-44), whose deathbed request was that his burial monument would depict his body as it would be three years after his death. His request seems to have been enthusiastically perused by his wife. Neither would have been disappointed by the work of the attributed sculptor Ligier Richier, whose extremely bleak art presents an emaciated and flayed skeleton standing upright as if a "living corpse". [NSFW], but I find the work to be very honest, and quite inspiring. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good edits. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about MOS:SANDWICH, any thoughts? ——SerialNumber54129 14:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only see a problem with the images under "Death of René of Chalon". Perhaps move the image of René to the beginning of the section, and then move the one of his wife down to the third paragraph? Will create more space between them. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FunkMonk, have gone with your suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Cool, will have a look soon. On first glance, Henry IV, Count of Bar is duplinked within the same section. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • René of Chalon should also be linked at first mention outside the intro.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, this intention has never been definitively attributed" Who claimed it, then?
Not known by me. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commissioned the piece from Richier" Needs full name and link at first mention in article body.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His widow commissioned Ligier Richier" Remove full name and link at second mention here.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " raised hand and what it might originally have held" Why frame this as a current question, when the answer seems to have been known since 1793?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were juxtaposed by the novelist Louis Bertrand" When?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bowels remained at Bar" Link Bar.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the "Cadaver" section title perhaps be renamed? It seems a bit misleading when it is a statue. "cadaver statue", or just "statue"?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This hand holds his preserved heart" But you just wrote the heart was stolen?
    Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should measurements be converted?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The gesture may be in reference to the biblical passage from Job 19:26" According to who? You attribute some interpretations in text, but not others.
  • Any description of the mural? Or just a statement of what it depicts?
  • "The monument fulfils Anna's wish" But you also state it was René's wish (in the intro)? If both are uncertain, you should probably be more cautious with the wording.
    She was implementing his wish. Restated. Ceoil (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tomb was designated as a Monument historique object on June 18, 1898." Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Replicas of the statue are in the Musée Barrois in Bar-le-Duc[1] and the Palais de Chaillot, Paris." Likewise.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have created a separate section on this. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok, working though There now. FunkMonk can you take another look pls. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, have the last issues been addressed as well? Since they didn't get replies. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I didn't see those were actually your replies, since you used bullet points instead of indentations, I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look good, but I assume "held" was meant here? "The outheld hand once healed his preserved heart". FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, held was meant and has been changed. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all issues nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the time and help. Ceoil (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...

The tomb was designated as a Monument historique object on... - is "object" necessary as a noun-adjective-noun reads oddly to mine eyes....
The altarpiece beneath the sculpture is made from black carved marble and limestone and measures 105 x 233 inches. - other measuremnts in cm only
''Its top-slap is taken from the former tomb of Henry IV, Count of Bar (d. 1344) and Yolande of Flanders (d. 1395). - slab?
is there a legacy at all - did it influence other sculptures?
  • Have started such a section. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the lead, such as the monument designation and the replica in the Palais de Chaillot, do not appear to be mentioned in the body or sourced anywhere
  • FN1: not seeing that title at the source link
  • Ranges should use endashes not hyphens
  • FN11 should match format of other book sources
  • FN13 should indicate original French. Same with FN17, 23
  • FN18: that's not an accurate translation of the journal title, and the wikilink definitely isn't right
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Gedo is missing an ISBN
  • Jones: check publisher
  • What makes Ventura a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced
Thanks Nikki, excellent spots. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Complete Ceoil (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

I'll be supporting this, but a few minor drafting points first:

  • Date formats: in the lead we have the AmE style – "July 15, 1544" and in the main text BrE style – "15 July 1544". Better stick to one form or the other.
  • "World War 1" – usually gets a Roman numeral (or, in my view even better as "the First World War", but to each his own)
  • "his uncle Philibert of Chalon[6] grandmother and the uncle of his wife" – I couldn't work out who was who here. I think this sentence needs reviewing and clarifying.
  • "It is 177 cm in height" – we usually give an imperial translation in brackets for metric measurements
  • "Art historian Kathleen Cohen" – clunky false title, which can be fixed by adding a definite article in front of it.
  • "105 x 233 inches" – I think you ought to standardise on metric with imperial in brackets afterwards or vice versa, rather than have metric for the height earlier and then imperial here.
  • "top-slap" – I'm guessing this should be top-slab

That's all from me. An intriguing article. I had no idea such memorials existed. Very pleased to have read it and look forward to supporting. Tim riley talk 15:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all very useful and I think sorted now. Delighted you enjoyed the read. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid! Happy to join the supporters. Thoroughly readable, widely sourced and well (not to say scarily) illustrated. Clearly of FA standard in my view. Tim riley talk 18:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from KJP1[edit]

Ceoil - Just a marker to say I’ll be along as soon as I can. Wonderful, and wonderfully gruesome! KJP1 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "which apparently fulfilled his deathbed wish that his tomb depicts his body as it would be three years after his death" - two things here. To me, "tomb depicts" reads oddly. Should it be "depict". Secondly, I wonder if this needs to be caveated? The body of the text is much less certain that it was Rene's wish, indeed it suggests the more likely source of the idea was his widow.
  • Article now clarifies that it was René's wish, which she put into motion in her commission of Richier's statue. Ceoil (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his heart was held in a heart-shaped reliquary" - is "heart-shaped" required?
Death of René of Chalon and tomb commission
  • "while the rest were transferred to Breda to rest with his father" - to avoid the double "rest" perhaps, "to lie" or "to be interred"?
  • Prefer "to be interred". Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His widow commissioned Richier to construct a transi to hold some of the remains of her husband. The monument, along with the other relics of the Dukes of Bar, was transferred to the church of Saint-Étienne in June 1790" - I got a bit confused here. The transi is the tomb that's the article subject, yes? And who are these Ducs of Bar, who suddenly appear? Was that a title Rene had? And third, the 1790 transfer comes rather abruptly after the tomb's construction, even though it was 250 years later. I wonder if combing the third and fourth para.s, and ending it with the 1790 transfer may flow more easily?
  • "it is not known with what level of detail her instructions came with" - perhaps, "but the level of detail she may have specified is uncertain"? Not sure that's an improvement, but I do think the double with needs attention.
  • "a realistically depicted and severely emaciated corpses" - singular corpse, I think.
Interpretation
  • "Cadaver tombs, in France known as Transis" - does transi need a capital? It didn't above.
  • "but the heart was broken off and stolen by a soldier in 1793, and with it, the heart was lost" - the "hand" was broken off?
  • Have reworded as hand broken off. Apparently it was recovered, though the reliquary containing the heart was not. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the tomb may represent either a despairing "rotten", or romantic and eternal "lovers", point of view" - sorry, not quite getting this. What is a "rotten" point of view? Is there something missing after it?
ha, Bertrand's text, or at least the English translation of it, is quite impenetrable. Have rephrased as "the tomb may represent either despair or a romantic ideal of the eternal spirit", and found some additional source material that expands upon the notion. Ceoil (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Statue
  • "The outheld hand once healed his preserved heart" - "The outstretched hand once held his preserved heart" - and should we say "may have once held", given this isn't absolutely certain?
  • yes, Done.
  • "and made from black marble and white stone" - specify "limestone"?
  • "twelve small corbel statuettes measuring between 38 and 40 cm (1.25–1.3 in) to in height" - I think the "to" is a stray.
  • "Of these, six were destroyed in November 1793 during the French Revolution" - and the other six?, given that the image clearly shows there are none now.
  • Not known in the sources I have. Ceoil (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have clarified in the text that none remain. Ceoil (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with forensic and unflinching realism" - that reads like a direct quote. Should it be a quote?
  • Not specifically; "unflinching realism" is something of a cliché in descriptions of objects of this type. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which supports two black marble columns and a Corinthian capital" - hasn't each column got a capital, thus, "which supports two black marble columns with Corinthian capitals"?
  • "The hand was replaced and shown holding either a clepsydra or hourglass, obvious symbolic objects for a memento mori" - do we have a date for this. Sometime between the 1793 theft and the 1920 copying but when?
  • Not in the sources I have. There was a lot of looting during the French Revolutionary Wars, and a lot of other French noble / royal tombs were raided. Given the lack of coverage or prominence given to the period of absence in the sources, I'd say the arm was of low artistic value and easily replaced, and this was done was so sooner rather than later; but this is a guess. Ceoil (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sometime later this was replaced by less leading, but perhaps dull, current smooth round stone" - bit confused again here. "less leading" - "the misleading" (as I also think it's missing a definite article)? And "perhaps dull" - says who, you or the sources? And is it round? It's not easy to see but, for me, looking at the replica at Chaillot, it appears more heart-shaped than round.
  • Have regiged this bit, and removed the perhaps dull sentence. Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Altarpiece and frame
  • "The black-slab contains two old series of inscriptions which are also later additions" - why the hyphen? And is "old" misplaced? How are they both "old" and "later"? And are they later additions to this monument, or to the slab?
  • "on request by the then vicar of Saint-Étienne, Claude Rollet" - perhaps, "at the request of the then vicar of Saint-Étienne, Claude Rollet"?
  • "The altar holds a glass covered holding for the bones of the royals of Bar" - to avoid "holds a holding", perhaps, "The altar holds a glass- covered reliquary..."? And were the Dukes "royals", as opposed to "nobles"?
Provenance and conservation
  • "a vault which held the hearts of Antoine de Lorraine, René" - but not if the heart was in a reliquary in his hand. Caveat? "which originally/which may"?
  • "Due to humidity and impact with water" - "Due to humidity and contact with water"?
  • " was followed by a health assessment" - pretty poor, I'd suggest, from the look of him! "was followed by a condition assessment"?
Legacy
  • "Epitaph of the Heart of René de Chalon, Prince of Orange" - sure it is, but just checking it is "Epitaph of" and not "Epitaph on"?
  • Really excellent spot. Changed. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The poems includes the lines" - do we know which poem within the collection includes those lines?
  • "in her 1974 autobiography "All Said and Done"" - for other works, you've italicised rather than placed in quote marks.
Alt-text
  • This would be helpful for accessibility.
  • W.I.P. They will be repetitive obviously for the pics of the copies, but have been fun to let loose on otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for another great article on a fascinating work. KJP1 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KJP1 for this detailed review. Working through and will ping when complete. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 have extensively worked on the article based on your guidance and suggestions, can you take another look pls. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in good shape and pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Hi Ceoil. All the images seemed to be properly licensed, and consistently captioned, and have consistent alt text, except:

  • Death (Ligier Richier).jpg: In the Summary box, the fair use rationale has a lot of missing information.
  • Its missing standard info in the rather annoying template stuff, but the actual useful information is contained in the Fair use rationale, so I consider ok. Ceoil (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rene van Chalon.jpg: In the Summary box, Author information is missing. Also, I'm not sure if it an absolute requirement, but the link doesn't take the reader directly to the page where the image is located. The photo was uploaded 12 years ago, so likely it was moved. It may still be somewhere on the website, but the reader needs to hunt around to find it and verify. If the Author information is not clearly available, maybe one idea would be to upload a new version of the image with clearly defined Author information and (would be nice) a link directly to the image? Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown now added, while noting the preexisting "PD" tag; this is rather above the usual requirements. Ceoil (talk)
Mosie, have replaced with File:René de Châlon (ca 1518-44), by Jan van Scorel.jpg Ceoil (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moisejp, looking, gimme a bit to sort out. All done. Ceoil (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see from Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline that what you say is correct: the template is not required. I've removed the unnecessary template, and tweaked the FUR slightly to more clearly satisfy the requirements stated at that link. It all looks good, and the new image René de Châlon (ca 1518-44) also looks good. I'm satisfied. Moisejp (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2019 (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/Cadaver_Tomb_of_René_of_Chalon/archive1&oldid=1136098528"