Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2015.

Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret

 * Nominator(s): &#8209; iridescent 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret is a somewhat peculiar 19th century history painting. Probably intended as a moral test for male viewers to view a scene of sex, violence and vulnerability without feeling lust, at least one academic considers BRFA as marking the turning point in art history at which nudity ceased to be symbolic of innocence and instead became symbolic of domination and coercion. BRFA is a very odd-looking work to the modern eye, but that's because The Faerie Queene has fallen out of favour in recent years—at the time, Spenser was as popular as Shakespeare in the English-speaking world, and audiences could reasonably be assumed to understand the references without explanation. &#8209; iridescent 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:The_Knight_Errant_b_John_Everett_Millais_1870.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a little reluctant to amend it, since this version is used on so many articles (15 articles on eight different language Wikipedias) and someone could—conceivably—want to know exactly where the particular upload in use came from. That The Knight Errant is out of copyright isn't in dispute; here's its entry in the Tate catalogue showing that it was first exhibited in 1870 and is credited solely to John Everett Millais, and it's not in dispute that Millais died in 1896. (We do have an alternative upload of it, but the colour balance is slightly oversaturated so I don't really want to use it.) &#8209; iridescent 15:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And that doesn't even give a source. "Sources" for old museum paintings are really rather a nonsense - the actual photo is always the museum's (or one of them) as they don't allow anyone else to take the painting down, set up lights, etc. Us worrying about which particular website re-using it that we took it from is rather pointless. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Up to the usual standard, and I can't find anything to comment on. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - only found one tweak to do, which I did myself. Only (minor) question is (as I can't tell from the image), did Fuseli also have Amoret unharmed in his image and is that worth noting (as long as we can source it.)? Otherwise looks comprehensive and niceprosive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Stepping to the wrong side of the WP:OR line, Fuseli's version shows Amoret hanging naked and unconscious with her torso in deep shadow, so while there's a clear implication that she's been the victim of violence of some kind, there aren't any visible injuries. Nowadays, Fuseli is a much bigger deal in German-speaking countries as Sturm und Drang went out of fashion very quickly in the London and Paris art markets which tended to drive public taste elsewhere, and I suspect that if there are any modern sources that discuss this painting in detail they'll be German-language. (I wouldn't be surprised if none exist; because this painting hangs in the Goethe House, rather than a major art gallery, it probably doesn't get the level of attention from historians it would receive if it were with in the Kunsthaus Zürich or Tate Britain.) &#8209; iridescent 13:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh....at the end of the day we have to stick to sources. Interesting though....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I basically agree with User:John that "a number of" is to be avoided, though my reason is that my data suggests it's ambiguous in writing (but not necessarily when spoken, when you know your listener). I replaced a couple instances with "several"; please fix that if it's wrong. I really look forward to seeing this one at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources review: All sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Citations are consistently and correctly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.