Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat)/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) 14:18, 11 July 2015 [1].

Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat)[edit]

Nominator: Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the 14 c.1821–1823 "Black Paintings" by Francisco Goya, who lived longer than he might have preferred, into an old age of significant physical and mental ill-health, and a social period when, after the enlightment, Spain in ways regressed with outbursts of dogma and social control that drew in a calculated way from medieval doctrine. Goya withdrew and went silent in his last years; all we have are the paintings which are often strikingly modern (Francis Bacon, who rarely praised anybody, was greatly influenced) but nobody really knows what Goya wanted to express or intended.

All we can do is project, and this is the finest single piece of that late period, in my openion. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a couple of minor comments from Iridescent

  • "He wears a goat-like beard and horns, references to irrational animal instinct"—are they really references to animal instinct? Surely this was pretty much the universal visual shorthand for "demon" within Catholic imagery?
  • "The eyes of some figures emit beams of white light"—call me stupid, but I've looked at each figure and I can't see this.

No issue at all with supporting, even with the two above quibbles. Note that I haven't checked the sources, but I've no reason to doubt them. – iridescent 19:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I cant see anybody, ever, calling you stupid and have reworded the offending sentences. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you never met Ottava, then? – iridescent 14:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a disclaimer that I've made edits, but after basically a four or five year long peer review, per Iridescent, no issues supporting. Victoria (tk) 20:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its been a long one and you helped a lot. Thanks for the support. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Quinta_del_Sordo_1900.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Aquelarre_de_Laurent.jpg should identify copyright of original work and photo. Source link is dead, and what aspect of the image is reflected in the current licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have added US PD to the first image; having difficulty with the second; will continue to search. Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I find this bit about "inversion" unclear, i.e. lacking context: "The earlier painting uses traditional imagery of witchcraft in that its depiction inverts traditional Christian iconography. The goat extends his left rather than right hoof towards the child, while the quarter moon faces out of the canvas at the top left corner." Traditional Christian iconography has goats extending right hooves, and quarter moons facing other directions... or what?
  • Now reading ...uses witchcraft imagery to invert traditional Christian iconography. I agree re material in the lead not in the body, will relocate. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extensive quote from Stafford doesn't scan. The bold part is what doesn't scan, but the whole thing could stand to have more breathing room. Could you simplify it?: "Barbara Stafford said that Goya "brusquely [inlaid] spots of light within prevailing darkness [and] aqua-tinted and painted [verb or adjective?] visions [which] demonstrated the powerlessness of the unmoored intellect to unify a monstrously hybrid experience according to its own a priori transcendental laws.""
  • "His use of chalk for the preparatory drawings compounded the problem, as oil and chalk generally do not bind well." This is a bit of cheating as the article says earlier that he didn't use an underdrawing for this particular black painting. Is it possible that sources conflict or one sources was just talking about the black paintings in general?
  • I don't know what "a pre-emptor of today's artistic sensibilities" means. I figured it meant exactly what you say in the bit that follows it: "and a precursor to works by modern artists...". If so it's redundant; if not could it be clarified?
  • Otherwise great work Ceoil. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the second paragraph of the lead has more detail on the privateness of the black paintings than the "Background" section does and I think a couple of facts from that paragraph could be moved there, such as "They are not mentioned in his letters[6] and there are no records of him speaking of them.[7]"--which really is just more detail confirming the previous sentence. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Riggr, have fixed the Stafford quote and the pre-emptor claim. Working through your other points. Ceoil (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inversion thing is mostly around left/right, espically around crossing of hands, orders of devils and saints. Now removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your extensive c/e and guidance *much* appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"'Contemporary photographs tended... - I'd probably change this to say, "Photographs from this period tended..." - due to the misinterpretation and misuse of "contemporary" to mean "modern".
Thats better, yes. Changed now. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all looks in order....I couldn't find any other niggles though was tired when I read it...hmmm...will take another look a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Cas. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Well up to standard. Comprehensive, well documented, good prose and of course beautifully illustrated. Tim riley talk 08:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Amazing stuff, well done...Modernist (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Can't fault it even though I'm now cursed with a mental image of Ceoil in tiny speedos (long story, but at least I've hopefully spread that image to you, dear reader). Do The Dog next; I love that painting, even if he is sooo sad; I'm off to bleach my mind. Belle (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Belle. Re the dog; try as we might to ressurect mr Yomangan, he seems to have passed onto pastures zenn. I do rememeber him producing a lazy bastards guide to FAC, and I suppose he should have been careful what he wished for; presumably the retirment was all part of a ruse. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been over a week so I'll look after this myself... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- references look prima facie reliable and citation formatting seems fine but:

  • You don't seem to have cited Gallucci, Myers or Wight anywhere, so they should be removed or used in a Further reading section.
  • You have two Havard sources but only one is cited and without more info we don't know which; the unused one should be removed from Sources.
  • I'd expect to see footnotes 12 and 30 cited, as are 5, 6, etc.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, all fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the two Havard sources but only one citation... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ops, that's done now. Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2015 (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/Witches%27_Sabbath_(The_Great_He-Goat)/archive1&oldid=1138475766"