Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Disasters of War/archive2

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 Karanacs 18:43, 16 February 2010 [1].

The Disasters of War[edit]

Nominator(s): Johnbod, Modernist, Ceoil

82 depressing, bleak etchings by Francisco Goya, who, at the time was non plussed by his French neighbours. Appreciation to Steve and Anonymous Dissident for careful and extensive copyedits. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. No dab links or external links. Alt text is present in all but a few images—rather an accomplishment considering the number of images and their significance. It's mostly good, but there are a few problems here and there: per WP:ALT#Verifiability, we shouldn't be speculating what the devil is writing about, for example, and I don't think we can see that the soldiers in the second image are French. Also some prose issues here and there—please check. Ucucha 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its very unlikely those soldiers are not French. They were at war at the time, the Spanish and French. Very messy. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The issue is that from the image alone it is not clear they were French. Again, see WP:ALT#Verifiability. Ucucha 21:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence in the lead says art historians view [the etchings] as a visual protest against the violence of the 1808 Dos de Mayo Uprising, the subsequent [[[Peninsular War]] of 1808–1814 . Spanish rebels and French army. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're still not talking about the same thing. I know what the Peninsular War is and who fought there, and you don't have to tell me. My issue is rather this: If a non-expert would look at The Third of May 1808 (the image I was referring to; the third and not the second, as I corrected below), this non-expert would not be able to see that the soldiers were French. Thus, it shouldn't be in the alt text. Ucucha 02:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Third of May 1808 is one of the most famous painting in art history, and a FA by this team. Its so well known, I did not think to cite that it involved French people. Second sentance in that articles lead says - In the work, Goya sought to commemorate Spanish resistance to Napoleon's armies during the occupation of 1808. Napoleon was French. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well its refed now! Thanks anyway for your review. Sorry if I was prickily; a look is appreciated. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the alt text for this painting; I think the text I wrote gives people who cannot see the image more of an impression of how striking the painting really is. (Added after EC: Actually, you shouldn't add refs to alt text: everything in the alt text should normally be verifiable from the image itself. But thanks for the changes made and for making me see some great if depressing works of art. Ucucha 02:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your version is better - thanks for that. Sorry if the page depresses you; I did mention the word bleak at the head of this nom! You were warned! Ceoil ^sláinte 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: The soldier with the furry hat is wearing a French uniform. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and thanks, I think that is captured in the capt text. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the images now have alt text.
CommentThe alt text in the second image says only soldiers. The caption reads French Soldiers because Goya made this group of images that are memorializing the French armies invasion and occupation of Spain and image 2 depicts Spanish civilians clobbering French soldiers...Modernist (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I meant the third image. The second is fine. Ucucha 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the second plate in the gallery, could one of you take look at the caption: "Plate 5: Y son fieras (And they are wild beasts or And they fight like wild beasts). This plate shows a priest is tied to a stake Soldiers murder priests with bladed swords" --- are these typographical errors? Other than this, I can find no other glaring issues, but I will suggest moving the larger notes in the references to a separate section, using the <references group=a/> feature. A very fine article. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IMS - I fixed that. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on El Greco, uses that group template for long notes. However, its beyond me, frankly...Help! Ceoil ^sláinte 03:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it. Ucucha 03:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ucucha. I did try, but got confused. html buggs me. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate section The Disasters of War#Footnotes now. Feel free to change the section header and the label "a", of course. You can also add refs within these footnotes (as at Noronha skink#Footnotes); I can do that if you wish. Ucucha 03:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a great improvement. I would like to add footnotes within sure - that I can figure out my self. Thanks, though. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so... it's actually pretty complex, since you have to use {{#tag:ref| syntax. Ucucha 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as thick as I look. If I run in to difficulty....I'll knock. You did a good job here, I'm happy with the result, and certainly not saying I could just throw similar out. Ta, in other words. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Overall, this is an excellent article on a wonderful topic. However, it seem to me that there are a couple of significant problems revolving around the notion of "line" and an overreading/misreading of one of the article's primary sources, Anne Hollander's Moving Pictures.

The first, and recurrent, problem is the idea that Goya "abandons line" in these images. Here are some of the effects of this claim:

The reader is obliged to reject the evidence of her own eyes, which reveals that Goya clearly does use line to create figures. A lot of strong like work, for instance, is used to create the predominant figure in plate 3, Lo mismo.
In the lede, one sentence after reading that Goya "abandons line", we read that Goya used "mainly etching for the line work." That's not coherent.
In the Technique and style section, we similarly read that Goya "abandons line" and then three sentences later that he "uses line" (for particular effects that are well described). Again, that's not coherent.

In sum, it's clear that Goya does not abandon line—certainly not the way he "abandons colour" (which he evidently abandons entirely). From the description by Hollander quoted in the article, it would be much more accurate to say that he largely abandons the classical uses or virtues of line and employs it for a different effect. Let's look at the unquoted passage from her book that apparently inspired the "abandons line" claim: "Line as well as colour is demonstrably irrelevant to the kind of vision Goya proposes." Now, we could argue over whether Hollander is overstating matters to begin with, but that's not necessary. It is surely overreading her argument to transform "irrelevant to the kind of vision Goya proposes" into "abandons", especially when Hollander herself very specifically describes Goya's employment of line in these pictures.

Dan, thanks for taking so much time to review and edit article. I think the problem - from looking back at the history of the page - stems from a misunderstanding of mine of the point the sources were making in this regard - abandons colour, not line. Hmm. It seems to be largely corrected, but I am going through this again now in the existing text. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second problem occurs immediately afterward in the Technique and style section. This states that Blake and Fuseli "both contemporaries of Goya's, worked in a similarly graphic and direct manner", a claim cited to Hollander. In fact, Hollander poses Goya in sharp contrast to Blake and Fuseli in how he handled comparable subject matter. She writes that Blake and Fuseli's "graphic works of extreme fantasy show the uses to which exquisitely applied linearity may be put, to keep scary and sordid material from being overwhelming by lodging it firmly in the safe citadels of beauty and rhythm." She has just described how Goya avoids anything that might be called "exquisitely applied linearity" in favor of the "scratch", the "splinter", the "jagged", exactly so as not to "dignify and tame" his scary material.—DCGeist (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this now reads William Blake and Henry Fuseli, contemporaries of Goya's, produced works with similarly fantastical content, but, as Hollander describes, they muted its disturbing impact with "exquisitely applied linearity ... lodging it firmly in the safe citadels of beauty and rhythm."[59] Ceoil ^sláinte 17:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - This is a fascinating and very well written article, and—though indeed "depressing, bleak"—a pleasure for any encyclopedia reader to encounter. As well as a very detailed account of the artist's approach, techniques and experiences when creating these prints, a clear historical context is given--not only in the introductory background section, but running all through the article. I will be giving this nomination further consideration with a view to supporting in due course. A few minor points so far on the prose: *The full album consists of 85 prints, including the three small Prisioneros ("Prisoners") made in 1811, before he started work on The Disasters of War, and which are consequently not counted as part of the series. - sentence needs a slight tweak in one way or another; currently "and which are" doesn't quite fit the preceding text.

The logic is rather circular. Maybe just drop "consequently". Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought "consequently" is fine; how about "made in 1811, before he started work on The Disasters of War, and consequently not counted as part of the series."? However, looking at it more closely, I note that there appears to be a date clash with the lead, which states, "The Disasters of War ... is a series of 82 prints created between 1810 and 1820". PL290 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But regardless of the dates, if they were counted in the series, they couldn't have been made before he started it! "1810-20" is Bareau, and 3 of the plates (20, 22, & 27) are actually dated 1810 (pp 49-50). The real thing excluding them is their size & shape & lack of title captions etc, plus they weren't in the published edition. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the series progressed, Goya evidently began to experience shortages of good quality paper and copper plates, and was forced to take the "drastic step" of destroying two plates depicting landscapes, from which very few impressions had been printed. - why the quotation marks for "drastic step"? It doesn't seem to be a quote, and therefore seems to hint at something without really defining it. Perhaps "forced to reuse two plates depicting ..."?

"drastic step" is a quote from Bareau, 50, as refed at the end of the following sentence. I suppose the ref got dislocated in copyediting. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1873, Spanish novelist Antonio de Trueba published the purported reminiscences of Goya's gardener, Isidro, on the genesis of the series. de Trueba claims to have spoken to Isidro in 1836 ... - I could be wrong, but I have a feeling "de Trueba" should have an upper-case "D" when starting a sentence. Perhaps you could check the convention.

You're right. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being one of the most significant anti-war works of art, The Disasters of War had no impact on the European consciousness for two generations, as it was not made public until published by Madrid's Royal Academy of San Fernando in 1863. - "not made public until published" seems to have a tautological ring to it; perhaps this can be lessened by using other words such as "not generally available", or simply saying "only published in 1863" etc.

"Not seen outside a small circle in Spain" is what is meant. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a couple of places, the possessive of series appears as series' (The series' impact on Salvador Dalí) whereas I think, since we are talking about one series, it should really be series's (The series's impact on Salvador Dalí). Could avoid by rewording!
I now see that this guideline, referenced from MoS, reveals a minefield of opinion. So I will leave the matter with the nominators.

I said they were minor. PL290 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (mainly on prose and comprehensiveness) - I will leave it to experts in the subject area to iron out certain details currently under discussion but this is an excellent, comprehensive and engaging article. PL290 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not read the article but layout is very messy on this at the moment, images go off one section into next, Portrait of the Duke of Wellington, Plate 26, 39. All section titles should start on the far left, Legacy and Gallery don't currently. SunCreator (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's always struck me as OK, personally, whenever I've seen it in articles—it's the behaviour-by-design of the Wikimedia software, as far as I know. Is that your own opinion you're giving there, or is there a WP guideline on this? PL290 (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - It's my opinion. I would think others would agree, but maybe not. Adding Template:Clear on the line before the section headings resolves the issue anyhow. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with SunCreator on this, and have found it fustrating on many articles...until about 2 weeks ago when I discovered the Template:Clear function. Anyway, I see Modernist has it sorted. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done added Template:Clear to all the sections...Modernist (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I was excited to see this article up for review as I have been interested in this series of pictures for a while; I may have seen the Chapman Brothers ones first, I don't rightly remember. Really enjoyed the article, wonderful prose style and very engaging. I expect I will be poring over our images and reading some other Goya articles as a result of this. Two comments; the first external link is titled "The 82 Prints". When I clicked on it I expected to see, indeed, the 82 prints (not that I needed to since we are also hosting them). I'm warned I'm going to a Spanish site and I don't speak Spanish, nevertheless I was a bit surprised by what I was confronted with. I experimentally prodded a link and then saw the prints and figured out the navigation after that but it's not ideal. Do we need the link given that we host the prints and this link will be unintelligible to most of our readers? And the third external link goes to one of a series of essays, at the end of which are listed a number of other essays in the same series. I wonder if it would make more sense to link to the 'contents/index page' for the series of essays rather than the individual one that has been chosen? --bodnotbod (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bodnotbod. I think you are right about the last link - I changed to the parent page. Don't speak Spanish myself, so I'll hold to see what others say about the first link. As a matter of not much interest, I discovered Goya through the Chapman Brothers also. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is clearly of Featured Article quality. Thanks for all the work you put into it. Eubulides (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.