Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/El Greco

El Greco

First of all, I want to make clear that this is not yet the final form of the article. Regard it as an incomplete effort. But I request this peer-review, in order to receive feedback and proceed with the adequate improvements. My obvious goal is to submit this article in FAC. Please, any suggestion, contribution, idea is welcomed. I want to highlight my major concerns:

• Possible prose defficiencies.
• Factual accuracy.
• Possible ommissions in the content.
• Artistic assessments and comparaisons.

Thank you!--Yannismarou 14:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Plange

I will definitely review this for you this weekend! --plange 15:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's my thoughts:

• "These works would come to impose themselves" impose on whom? the artworld, the king?

Rephrased.

• the quote from Pachero leaves me hanging: "If I say that Domenico Greco sets his hand to his canvases many and many times over, that he worked upon them again and again, but to leave the colors crude and unblent in great blots as a boastful display of his dexterity?" Usually "if's" are followed by "then's"?

Rephrased.

• This sentence is pretty convoluted: "The same scholar asserts that Platonism and Neo-Platonism (not that of the Renaissance but the ancient one), Plotinus and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (who was included in his library), texts of the Church fathers and liturgical texts offer the keys to the understanding of El Greco's style"

Tried to simplify it.

• I see you're using {{cquote}} for your inline quotations, and while they look pretty, they're really not in keeping with WP:MOS. Inline quotations (where you have "someone said:" and then the quote) should just use <blockquote>s. cquote template is for "pull quotes" that are outside of the flow of the prose, like you do with your nice blue ones (which I use as an example, BTW, when I try to show people what a pull quote is)

I rearranged the quotes and inserted also the use of <blockquote>s. I hope it is now better.--Yannismarou 20:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job!! --plange 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will work on your proposals. I've already done some tweaks.--Yannismarou 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Celithemis

I'm surprised you say this isn't in its final form -- it seems extremely thorough and well-organized. Mostly a matter of copyediting, I think.

Some miscellaneous notes:

• "Fodele or Candia (or Chandax, the present day Herakleion)": this sounds as if it refers to three different places rather than only two.

• Rephrased.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "English teacher Janet Sethre": is she really a primary or secondary school teacher, rather than a professor? If so, it's not clear why she is a source worth quoting on a question of interpretation. Does she have another claim to authority that isn't mentioned?

• Removed claims of Sethre, because I did not find any other source supporting them and just kept a reference to another art historian and El Greco's critic.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "According to Harold E. Wethey, professor of the History of Art at the University of Michigan" -- I think the name would be enough here. In general, if someone quoted is some kind of art historian or professor, including their job title doesn't seem necessary.

• I changed it to "According to professor Harold E. Wethey ... ".--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Could all the discussion of exactly when El Greco went to Venice be summed up as "around 1567", and the full explanation moved to an explanatory footnote? The research and care are impressive, but there's a risk of losing the important points in all this detail. Also, it's unclear whether this paragraph means to say that his works were greatly esteemed in Venice or in Crete.

• I totally agree! I overanalyzed the whole issue. More analysis shifted to note e.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "the hostility of certain artistic cycles" -- this phrase doesn't make sense.

• Rephrased. I hope it is clear now.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "The inventory of the household goods does not mention, however, a large house." What?

• I know! I thought the same thing seeing it! It was copy-edited. The intial phrasing was: "The inventory of the household goods does not retain, however, the memory of a wealthy mansion" and I now made it "The inventory of the household goods does not retain, however, the memory of a large house". What do you think?--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Under Re-evaluation of his art, there's a repetition: "Future generations found little appreciation..." and then "The master was disdained by the next generations after his death".

• Re-organized the paragraph per your suggestion.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Referring to El Greco as "the master", "the Cretan painter", "the Cretan master", etc. rather than by his sobriquet is an awkward way of avoiding repetition.

• I'll have more of his sobriquet! I was also thinking about this matter.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "grace is the supreme quest of the artistic form": "the supreme quest of art" would make more sense (unless "the artistic form" refers to painting?)

• Corrected.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "turn this use of light into a detonating force": "detonating" doesn't seem like quite the right metaphor here.

• Tried to rephrase. It is difficult however to exactly translate the Greek word as it is in my source and as I understand it.

• "the interweaving between form and space": can you unpack this a bit more?

• Well, I tried to. I added one more explanatory sentence.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• The heading "supposed Byzantinism" is POV (implying that the supposition is incorrect).

• What about "Suggested Byzantine Affinities" I wrote?--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, though, it looks really good. —Celithemis 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I should mention I made a printout to read earlier today, so if you already changed some of the things I mention here, don't mind me. I'll try to do a bit of copyediting based on the notes I scribbled, as well. —Celithemis 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One more I noticed while copyediting:

Acislo Antonio Palomino de Castro y Velasco, a Spanish painter and writer on art, described his mature work as "contemptible and ridiculous". Some of these commentators, such as Céan Bermúdez, argued that El Greco made his works so eccentric that he became ridiculous and worthy of scorn.

This seems repetitive: "contemptible and ridiculous" is virtually the same thing as "ridiculous and worthy of scorn." Maybe consolidate the two sentences? Or even just say "also argued". —Celithemis 06:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merged.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, I should have copyedited BEFORE posting here. Just a few more things:

• "the structural code in the morphology of the mature El Greco": this could use more explanation.

• I tried to offer some further explanation.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "he visited his friend Ignacio Zuloaga": it's not made clear why this is relevant to Picasso's interest in El Greco.

• Because Zuloaga was the owner of the Fifth Seal. I'll clarify that.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "he declared that color had primacy over drawing": does this mean primacy over *line*?

• Well, by "drawing" I want to say design. Is "line" saying the same thing?--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Under Further assessments, there's some repetitive phrasing: "typically Mannerist" and then "a typical representative of Mannerism."

• I tried to fix it.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• The section on his Byzantinism is confusingly organized; it's hard to work out what the progression of views over time has been. —Celithemis 08:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• I tried to restructure the section and make this progression through time more obvious. But it is such the complexity of the various opinions that this is not an easy task!--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank for all your comments. I tried to address your concerns and I'll keep working on your detailed remarks. If you wish to do any further copy-edit, please feel free to proceed.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The changes completely resolved nearly all my concerns, so rather than go point by point I'll just drop down here....

I'm actually still confused about the house. Is the sentence saying that he never had a large house? Or that he did have one, and the inventory of household goods doesn't reflect that because he got rid of the furnishings?

Re "color over drawing" -- in that case, maybe form is the right word? Or possibly composition. It's not usual to refer to drawing in a painting in English, and I think line is probably more specific than what you mean.

Your revisions to the Byzantinism section definitely make things clearer (despite the welter of critical opinions on the subject!) The first sentence winds up being a bit vague, though. Perhaps something like "Since the beginning of the twentieth century, scholars have debated whether El Greco's style had Byzantine origins."? —Celithemis 09:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I removed this confusing sentence about the inventory. After all it did not add everything important. I'll implement your proposal and replace the first sentence according to your proposal.--Yannismarou 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)