Talk:Visionary Heads

This is not the way to write an article

 * note The below text recommends the changes which have been done here.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   21:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't put boxes around any quotation that flows from your main text. A box should only be used when the material in holds is separate from the body of text e.g. in the biography of a poet, a box might be used to contain a verse of their poetry which isn't integrated into the biography, but is a sample of their work.
 * A very large part of the written material in this article is direct quotation from other sources. Directly copying very large swathes of material in order to compose an article is not acceptable, even if the author is acknowledged.  The correct practice is to draw the facts from each one of the sources, and write those facts down in an encyclopaedic form.  Then reference the facts.  Don't simply lift someone-else's material.
 * Keynes, for example, is merely making a series of statements, including one that is an opinion. When you quote that opinion, word it accordingly:
 * "In the opinion of the biographer Keynes, Varley regarded them more seriously than Blake and may have ......etc"


 * If one shortish shortish section strikes you as so remarkably well-expressed, then quote and acknowledge.
 * If you have eye-witness evidence (not a later biographer) then that can be quoted in full.
 * In this case, material from Keynes, Raine and Bentley needs to be summarised and used appropriately. If Gilchrist's is a first person account, then that needs to be made clear in the way that the quote is introduced:
 * Blake's biographer Gilchrist, who witnessed these occurrences stated:
 * "Varley would say, 'Draw me Moses,' or David; or would call for ........"
 * Don't box this. It flows from the text.

Here's the section from the MOS Quotations

Amandajm (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your advice. I have already changed something according your ideas, and will try follow them in the future. But please understand, I created the article in such a way trying my best and do not wish to make it worse. I regard these quotations quite important and wish them to stay as they are. Moreover the most of them are not available on the Internet.
 * Please note that you wrote:
 * "Blake's biographer Gilchrist, who witnessed these occurrences stated:" - in fact Gilchrist had never "witnessed these occurrences" because he was born after Blake's death.
 * "In the opinion of the biographer Keynes" - Keynes was Blake's scholar but not "the biographer".
 * Regards, Dmitrismirnov (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not telling you what to write. I am trying to give you some idea as to how to go about summarising it. I wrote to you IF""" Gilchrist's is a first person account then''' do it like this....


 * Every single article that every editor writes is drawn from written sources, some of which are brilliantly written. It doesn't matter whether they are available on the internet or not. You cannot make an article by drawing paragraphs from other authors.

Amandajm (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you for the feedback. I agree with the need to reduce some of the quotes, at the same time, there is nothing stopping you from "Being Bold" and doing some of the revision. In my experience, most editors do better if other more experienced editors model the approach (such as paraphrasing and more focused quotations). If you have any time that would be great, if not I will come through this weekend and do some more revision.


 * However, I would suggest maintaining some of the longer quotes. Quotations describing an event (such as Blake's visions) don't necessarily lend themselves to summaries, especially when the premier reporters of the events, particularly the contemporary biographer Gilchrest, report the character of the event in a very intriguing and entertaining way good for intriguing and engaging our readers. Happy editing, Sadads (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. The article now incorporates User:Amandajm's advice. I think that the article is better for doing so. Amandajm asked me why I approved the article for its DYK Nomination when it was not compliant with Quotations. All of this is settled now because it does this now, however I feel justified in having granted a pass to the DYK nomination for the following reasons:
 * DYK submissions need not be completely in compliance with all Wikipedia guidelines
 * The article was good enough with lots of quotations in boxes
 * Wikipedia certainly benefited by the creation of this article
 * When someone does the good act of contributing content to Wikipedia it is not necessary to make them feel obligated to volunteer more time
 * The problem that Amandajm described existed - and it was a problem - could have been fixed by anyone and is fixed now.
 * I passed this article because it was awesome even though it was a bit odd with so many quotations, and I should have posted a recommendation on the talk page to format them, and it was negligent of me to not do this
 * The huge amount of quotations is not a problem and in the future I would still support the creation of such articles with public domain/libre content, even if it is odd by standard publishing practices, because Wikipedia is an odd publication itself intended to be copied and remixed verbatim without re-writing. While it is bad practice, I am going to cite WP:IAR to say that freely available summaries or concepts could be copypasted into Wikipedia (with attribution - no plagiarism allowed) but they need not always be re-written just to comply with publishing norms of the time before libre content.
 * I recognize that I am talking a controversial position and that Amandajm has the default, normal, widely-accepted and conservative perspective. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   21:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Response

 * Let me explain myself in more detail.
 * When I came on the article from the front page, it looked a mess, because the greater part of the written content was in boxed quotes. The boxes, by the nature of their form, were disrupting the formatting of the article, sitting badly with the pictures. This may not have been apparent, depending on the shape of the screen on which the viewer saw it,  but on a regular desktop/laptop, iy didn't work. Moreover, the main content was boxed, which in itself disrupts readability. This, being so obvious a problem, needed redressing before it became a frontpage article, even at the DYK level. Recommendations need to be made for DYKs, that go further than simply acknowledging that an article is of interest. I'm not repeating this in order to make Bluerasberry or anyone else feel bad, but merely to define the points I have made here.
 * "Anyone could have fixed it." No. it's not that simple. Anyone could remove the boxes.  But the main editor, Dmitrismirnov, is the person who is seeking to convey the right information, and who has at hand the source for that information, which undoubtedly go further than the quotes.  It's also part of a learning experience- sifting through the available information and rendering it in encyclopedic terms/
 * Use of quotations
 * I am not suggesting that quotations should not be used.
 * What I am trying to get over to you is that the quotations are supporting material and ought not be used to convey the facts of the article, but to support the facts, give insight to the facts, as well as revealing the opinions of relevant individuals or experts about those facts.
 * There is justification for using direct quote when the material quoted cannot be well expressed by encyclopedic prose, or when the quotation constitutes a significant historic document that sets a perspective on the subject of the article:
 * a) From St Peter's Basilica: The American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson described St. Peter's as "an ornament of the earth ... the sublime of the beautiful."[11].  This quotation says something very significant about St Peter's Basilica in a way that encyclopedic language cannot describe, and which Wikipedia MOS rules out in ordinary editorial writing, yet which gives a picture that this church is of far greater significance than the average church, and perhaps ought to be on ones bucket list, a view held by countless thousands of people.
 * b) From Leonardo da Vinci in a section Fame of Leonardo da Vinci: The continued admiration that Leonardo commanded from painters, critics and historians is reflected in many other written tributes. Baldassare Castiglione, author of Il Cortegiano ("The Courtier"), wrote in 1528: "... Another of the greatest painters in this world looks down on this art in which he is unequalled ..."....... The 19th century brought a particular admiration for Leonardo's genius, causing Henry Fuseli to write in 1801: "Such was the dawn of modern art, when Leonardo da Vinci broke forth with a splendour that distanced former excellence: made up of all the elements that constitute the essence of genius ...[106] These quotes support the statement that Leonardo commanded admiration from painters and critics, and give a picture of how very highly he was regarded.
 * c) From True Cross: ''Theodoret (died c. 457) in his Ecclesiastical History Chapter xvii gives what had become the standard version of the finding of the True Cross:
 * "When the empress beheld the place where the Saviour suffered, she immediately ordered the idolatrous temple, which had been there erected, to be destroyed, and the very earth on which it stood to be removed. When the tomb, which had been so long concealed, was discovered, three crosses were seen buried near the Lord's sepulchre....' NOTE the statement of the historic significance of this account', which is why it needs quoting in full.

In this instance

 * What are the facts that we really need to know, in the body of the article?
 * 1) The body material starts with john Linnell. We don't know who he is from the intro. He is a secondary character. We are not told anything other than Varley was his teacher, so why is he there, right at the beginning? We need a first sentence that states :The Visionary heads were produced by Blake........." (you finished the sentence with something about either date, circumstance or some such, but begin with Blake and the heads, not some incidental character who is not explained.
 * I made the following alteration: "In September 1818 one of the best friends and kindest patrons of William Blake, the successful young painter John Linnell, introduced to Blake his former teacher John Varley."

- Dmitrismirnov (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) We need to be told that Blake claimed to have visions. We need to have this fact before we are told that Varley was interested in Blake's visions. NOTE: the words "Blake claimed...." are significant.


 * So, I added at the beginning a short introduction that answers this and many following questions: "Blake claimed to have seen visions from his young age throughout his life, and in these visions he was visited by the spirits of some people from the remote past as well as by his deceased friends from whom he  received his inspiration for his poetry and painting.  He also believed he was personally instructed and encouraged by Archangels to create his artistic works, which he claimed were actively read and enjoyed by the same Archangels. In 1800 he wrote: “I know that our deceased friends are more really with us than when they were apparent to our mortal part. Thirteen years ago I lost a brother, and with his spirit I converse daily and hourly in the spirit, and see him in my remembrance, in the region of my imagination. I hear his advice, and even now write from his dictate.”"

- Dmitrismirnov (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) We need to know that they met at night
 * 2) We need to know that Varley would request Blake to "vision" or "portray" certain historic individuals, and that Blake responded to his request.
 * 3) We need to know that Blake claimed he could see these historic persons.
 * 4) we need to be told simply as a fact that Blake drew people from his "visions"
 * 5) We need to know (if possible) whether he drew them while his vision was taking place or whether he drew later from memory or both.
 * 6) We need to know about the folios.
 * These facts are the encyclopedic information that makes up this article
 * All these facts require referencing from your sources, but none of these facts requires a direct quote.


 * What information, from the sources, is usefully quotable, and what is not?
 * 1) "One well-known category of drawings is fully documented. This comprises the so-called "visionary heads", drawn by Blake from what he claimed were visions of a variety of historical characters who appeared at his command and "sat" for their portraits…   This statement is the basis of the article. Making a direct quote out of a statement as basic as "One well-known category of drawings is fully documented" is pointless.  The terms "well-known category"obviously refers to some previous discussion of drawings and has no part in this article whatsoever.  The required statement is:  Blake's "Visionary Heads" are well-documented (reference Keynes) it is a singularly unquotable quote.
 * 2) "It seems clear to me that Varley took this curious pastime a great deal more seriously than did Blake. To the latter it was a satisfaction to employ his faculty of vivid memory and imagination in the production of interesting characterizations of a varicty of people... Blake sometimes drew them with such conviction that Varley seems to have regarded them as actual portraits."  This is not a "comment". This is an opinion. It starts off with "It seems clear to me" so Keynes is making it clear that it is his opinion.  It could be direct quoted,  In the opinion of the biographer Keynes: "...Varley took this curious pastime a great deal more seriously than did Blake etc etc" (ref Keynes) NOTE: the irrelevant lead "it seems clear to me" is omitted as it is covered by "in the opinion of Keynes".
 * Alterations: "Blake's "Visionary Heads" are documented quite well. Varley left his account about these sessions that took place almost nightly, recording some dates and circumstances of the evenings. He made a lot of detailed inscriptions below or on the back of Blake’s drawings that help to classify them. He also created two lists known as “Varley’s lists of Visionary Heads” (A & B) where he specified about 95 titles of  “Potraits Drawn by W. Blake from Visions which appeared to him & Remained while he completed them…”  John Linnell, who was also actively involved in these events, copied many of Blake’s "Visionary Heads"  to engrave them later for Varley’s “Treatise”, wrote his own account in his “Journal” and “Autobiography”. In the opinion of Blake scholar Sir Geoffrey Keynes “Varley took this curious pastime a great deal more seriously than did Blake. To the latter it was a satisfaction to employ his faculty of vivid memory and imagination in the production of interesting characterizations of a varicty of people... Blake sometimes drew them with such conviction that Varley seems to have regarded them as actual portraits.""

- Dmitrismirnov (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Alterations again: "John Varley left his account of these sessions that took place almost nightly, recording some dates and circumstances of the evenings. He made a lot of detailed inscriptions below or on the back of Blake’s drawings that help to classify them. He also created two lists known as “Varley’s lists of Visionary Heads” (A & B) where he specified about 90 titles (some of them repeated) of  “Potraits Drawn by W. Blake from Visions which appeared to him & Remained while he completed them…”  John Linnell, who was involved in these events and copied many of Blake’s "Visionary Heads"  to engrave them later for Varley’s “Treatise”, also wrote his own account and views on this subject in his “Journal” and “Autobiography” (fully cited by Bentley in his in “Blake Records”, see in the Bibliography below). This is why  Blake scholar Sir Geoffrey Keynes regarded  this category of Blake’s drawings as “fully documented”. In the opinion of “Varley took this curious pastime a great deal more seriously than did Blake. To the latter it was a satisfaction to employ his faculty of vivid memory and imagination in the production of interesting characterizations of a varicty of people... Blake sometimes drew them with such conviction that Varley seems to have regarded them as actual portraits.""

- Dmitrismirnov (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) "At last, in Varley, Blake had a friend who did not consider his visions ‘mad’." Very quotable quote. It is completely un-encyclopedic.  It states something that you cannot write as a fact. It conveys a very important idea. Quote it, attributed directly to Raine, as in "Raine says: blah blah blah".
 * 2) "Varley was an astrologer, and apparently a highly professional one. Skeptical Gilchrist admits that his predictions were astonishingly accurate. He was evidently also a student of other esoteric subjects, and it was under his in his encouragement and in his company that Blake was encouraged th draw (in a light-hearted spirit, as it seems) those strange ‘spirit heads’."  The facts about Varley need to be stated when Varley is first introduced to the body of the article. Varley was an astrologer, is essential fact. (ref Raine)  Varley was creditted by Blake's biographer Gilchrist as making accurate predictions. non-essential fact. (ref Raine, don't quote) NOTE: cite Raine of facts, don't direct quote.
 * 3) " One is ... reminded of Swedenborg, who conversed with spirits of departed almost as an everyday matter." Good but not essential quote. (ref Raine) Work it into the context of the article, or else leave it out as non-essential.
 * Probably, but for me this is much more that just "blah blah blah". Kathleen Raine was a highly respected scholar and thinker, and it is quite important to have her opinion on this subject. Dmitrismirnov (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) "These drawings – less imaginatively inspired, be it said, than Blake’s more serious work – have a more-than-lifelike quality which bears witness, at least? To astonishing power of visual fantasy." Excellent quote!  It sums up the the way in which these drawings measure up against Blake's other works, and gives them context and critical assessment. It needs to go near the end of the section with an appropriate lead.
 * Corrected, changed and moved two quotations down the main section. Dmitrismirnov (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Blake's biographer Alexander Gilchrist stated....  "Stated" is the wrong word to use in this case.  Gilchrist isn't making a "statement". He is giving a generalised description of  the sort of events that occurred in the meetings between Blake and Varley, not a statement of what he witnessed on some given occasion.  The passage gives a good picture of the way in which such a meeting might have taken place, and can be quoted in full, but not treated as the facts of this article, which is the position that it currently occupies.  If quoted in full, then the section needs to be headed "Gilchrist describes the meetings etc.... in the following manner'' : full quote, indented but not boxed.
 * I made this alteration. Dmitrismirnov (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, don't use the Gilchrist quote as your main statement of the facts.  Write the facts in an encyclopedic manner, supported by the best quotes.

Amandajm (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Amandajm, thanks for your time and kind assistance. I have already changed a lot of substantial details in the article according to your helpful advice. I'm sure that the article became better now. But if you or anyone thing that it is still possible to make it better, I would happy you or them to do so.  Yours, Dmitrismirnov (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you say, Amandajm, except that the article creator and the people involved in the DYK process have an obligation to bring the article to high standards before promoting the article. Your criticism is completely warranted. Everything you bring up is a serious problem and you intuitively recognize what ought to be done to make the article better. Your advice is great.
 * I am willing to accept Wikipedia contributions of a quality much lower than what you would like though, and even I am willing to promote lower quality content through DYK. Even with all the problems this article had, I still think it is a lot better than most of what passes through DYK. I also really am enthusiastic about the experimental and unorthodox creation of this article - it is an old book, the article is integrated with public domain reviews of the work, and a lot of non-text media is integrated in this article which can be used (and is being used) to illustrate a lot of other articles. I admit to being biased to overlooking problems just because I have interest in the subject matter and media sharing, and perhaps those ought not be factors in my passing the article for DYK but in fact they were.
 * I recognize the problems you identified - they should be fixed - but I disagree that any particular person has a responsibility to fix them or that the problems needed to be fixed before passing DYK. You might be right that they should be, but I do not think it is so clear by current DYK guidelines. I am very happy with your criticism and I will think about it next time I see a similar case.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   15:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with what you said, dear Mr. Bluerasberry, and thank you so much for your appreciation of my work. Yours Dmitrismirnov (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bluerasberry and Amandajm! The article is looking much better, and is closing in on what I would expect from many B-class articles (perhaps more context on Blake and/or the practice of illiciting visions in the early 19th century), Sadads (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. The quotations are much better incorporated. The Raine quote is good at the end of that section.
 * I have juggled the intro and created a new section from info that was too much for the lead, and more info that disrupted the narrative flow.
 * I think that it ought to make a B as it is a detailed account, informative and properly referenced. Good work!
 * Amandajm (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your editing. Regards! Dmitrismirnov (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)