Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Italian Renaissance painting/archive1
- 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 not promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.
Italian Renaissance painting[edit]
An article of top importance, but nonexistent until recently. Written by an art historian, with input from art teacher and other editors. Amandajm 06:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A thorough, well written article covering many aspects of Renaissance painting, the major artists, influences, etc. JNW 12:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:Oppose A truly great major contribu in a field overlooked so far. I oppose just for one reason, which might well be just an idiosincracy of mine: it misses some apprently less relevant painters, which were however highly influential at the time, and now. --Attilios 09:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
- Support, great and comprehensive article.--Grahamec 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional oppose - references are insufficient without page numbers. Calliopejen1 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, thank you for creating this article. I had tried to link many many times to Italian renaissance painting, only to be shocked every time there was still nowhere to link to. Calliopejen1 20:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Calliopejen1, both in appreciating the editor's work in creating such a useful article for Wikipedia and in believing that it has not been taken to featured level. This seems to me, like many Wikipedia articles, a good collection of information without any notable cohesion or logic for its content. For example, we have as main headings "Early Renaissance painting", followed by "Early Renaissance painting in other parts of Italy". Presumably, this is because the first of these is primarily about Florence, but the logic is not self-evident. And, as the article shows, artists moved about.
For this second section, art in Ferrara is certainly a worthwhile topic for a section, but I don't see why "Cosmè Tura in Ferrara", should be. The article goes into disproportionate detail about Tura: Cosmé Tura's painting is highly distinctive, both strangely Gothic yet Classicising at the same time. Tura poses Classical figures as if they were saints, surrounds them with luminous symbolic motifs of surreal perfection and clothes them in garments that appear to be crafted out of intricately folded and enamelled copper. The section has a long, inappropriately detailed description of frescoes in the banqueting hall and has as an illustration The Triumph of Venus for the d'Este by Francesco da Cossa. It seems that Tura may have only have designed this, in my opinion, very inferior-looking work. The second artist, to whom the picture is credited, about whom we are told nothing, is called both Francesco da Cossa and Francesco del Cossa. The section ends on the lengthy description of the banqueting house without any explanation of what its significance is to the evolution of the Renaissance. All this and no mention of Benozzo Gozzoli, if we are talking about significant large-scale frescoes of the Renaissance.
This is just one example of shaky and unexplained emphasis.
I thought it was slightly sloppy to sometimes lapse into bullets; for example this in the lead:
Renaissance painting can be divided into four periods:
- Proto-Renaissance, 1290–1400.
- Early Renaissance, 1400–1475.
- High Renaissance, 1475–1525.
- Mannerism, 1525–1600.
To which, two questions also arise: Who says? And why is Mannerism virtually unmentioned, then? The article seems to run out of steam at the end and not address the fourth of these periods (admittedly, it is the hardest). There was more to the late period than Mannerism, too, in my opinion (the first three periods are purely temporal, the fourth is a stylistic category, for some reason, which raises an eyebrow).
In the list of influences, I feel the article dissolves into what seem like notes; summary style should, in my opinion, be written in proper prose. The explanatory wording seems to me a cop out:
The following list presents a summary, dealt with more fully in the main articles that are cited above.
I could go on to question many odd and idiosyncratic assertions in the article. Presumably they come from the sources given in the notes (fair enough), but with no indication of page numbers, or in many cases of particular sources at all, one cannot easily check. For example, take the statement:
Under the influence of the Italian Renaissance painting, many modern academies of art were founded and it was specifically to collect the works of the Italian Renaissance that some of the world's best known art collections were formed.[31]
When one looks to note 31, one gets, merely: "for example the Royal Academy, and the National Gallery, London". This seems to me sloppy notemaking. There's no capital letter and no actual reference. Yet one would like to challenge the assertion, because the Royal Academy does not house one of the world's best known art collections, being largely a practical painters' organisation, hosting touring exhibitions. I am not one of those sticklers for citations, but anything that could be challenged should surely be cited, particularly with an article full of value judgements like this one, where many assertions could be challenged.qp10qp 23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response In answer to a couple of points you've raised. Firstly, Mannerism already had its own article, which is why it links. I didn't think that it needed dealing with again here. Secondly, the bit about the Royal Academy is meant to illustrate a point, but I don't think it is well enough expressed. The point is not about the collection, it is about the other part of the sentence which you quoted- Under the influence of the Italian Renaissance painting, many modern academies of art were founded.
- Thirdly, thank you for pointing out the apparent lack of logic in the sequence of headings. I'll fix it.
- Lastly, I don't agree with all your opinions, but I do agree with this one. Benozzo Gozzoli ought to have been included. Amandajm 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: You seem to have nominated a lot of pages recently claiming they are written by architectural or art historians. I find this concerning as I see no well known architectural historians in the history. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia has to be beyond reproach in its claims - I would like to know who these people are and their proven qualifications (or list of publications) to be so termed. If these facts are not available I don't think the claim of qualified authorship should be made. Regarding this page, this covers an enormous field, the page is full of statements, too many to mention individually "The Blessed Virgin Mary, revered by the Catholic Church worldwide, was particularly evoked in Florence" I'm not sure I agree with that - she is pretty much revered all over Italy, so I would like to know whose opinion that is - then such statements as "One of the most influential painters of northern Italy was Andrea Mantegna of Padua" I can think of several influential painters - who says this is the "most" - "Raphael was a carefree character who unashamedly drew on the skills of the renowned painters whose lifespans encompassed his" may be he was but whose opinion is this? and so on there are hundreds of statements like this throughout the page. It is a well written page, in places though I found I was getting bogged down and had to keep referring back to check I was following, I don't know if that is my problem or yours though, so for now probably best to concentrate on the referencing. You have nominated so many pages at the same time, I don't think it is fair to comment on too many at the same time - I would advise that you withdraw some and give your undivided attention to one at a time. Giano 13:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response, I should hardly be surprised, after the Baroque whatsits! The most sound advice that you have given here is probably that I have been unwise in putting up too many articles at the same time. I didn't fully realise what it was going to entail! Pity! But I'm not quite sure how one goes about withdrawing an article!? This one needs more work than I have time. (maybe some kind person will help me with the procedure.)Withdrawn Amandajm 15:20, 28 September 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.