Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Head VI/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 (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (diff).

Head VI

 * Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)''

This painting has facinated and unnerved me for 25 years. Francis Bacon completed around 45 individual canvases based on Velázquez's c 1650 Portrait of Innocent X; this is pehalps the best, with Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X a close second. A challenging and unsettling painting, imbued with the horrors of the aftermat of WWII. Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 *  Comment  funny coincidence, my daughter got home from school, amused at the apocryphal story of how Bacon got together with the burglar, and I took a look. I was recently saddened by the death of H.R.Giger and never looked at a Bacon work, but this is great! Proto-Giger! Ok..rant over, on ta read.......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The material of the small para two in the lead segues naturally on from para one - a it is so small, I'd meld it onto it.


 * Ditto para 4 onto para 3. (A bit less so but isolated miniparas irk me for flow..)


 *  Bacon presents the figure as a bust and it can clearly be identified as a pope from its clothing.  - subjects are switched here - think it'd work better as passive tense in first segment and one subject.....

Ottherwise nothing to quibble about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cas thanks. Though I'm surprised somebody versed in Saints, The Birthday Party and Swans didnt know Bacon, but then you have educated me on a lot and its all sides of the same thing. Delighted you took something from the page. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support on comprehensiveness and prose - the rest is icing on the cake. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone.
 * Lead: "The painting drew a mixed reaction from art critics." In context, "the painting" refers to Three Figures...', but that is not your intention, I think.
 * Clarified now. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Lead: Lawrence Gowing quote: lacks a close quote mark, and a cite.
 * Both there now. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Lead: Without consulting things like Fowler and my Oxford: is it possible for something to be the most seminal? I didn't think there could be degrees of "seminal", by definition.
 * Hmm. Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Lead contains text not in the body of the article (at least the Russell quote). Why not have that quote (certainly it is an arresting enough image to be read twice!) in the critical reception section?
 * 1949 Head series: "He told Sylvester that..." Do you think it might help to tell the reader who/what Sylvester was. Biographer? Art critic? Lover? Gallerist? I have no idea.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 1949 Head series: "sometimes various images that he painted over the same time", The phrase "over the same time" seems odd. "over time" yes. "at the same time" yes. But...?
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

1949 Head series: "Bacon was ruthlessly self-critical, and often destroyed or abandoned canvasses before they were completed. [etc]" It isn't clear why we are told this. The sentence afterwards does not relate to either Head VI or the 1949 Head series, and it appears we are not being told that any of the works in the series were destroyed or abandoned. Why is this here? (also it partly repeats text found in a later section)
 * 1949 Head series: "...grouped for convenience but are internally disparate". Can you clarify? I'm having trouble grasping exactly what is being said about the series here. The sentence begins by saying the series are "not discrete", but if even subsets of the works are "internally disparate", then how are these a series in any meaningful sense at all? Maybe my confusion arises from not understand who was doing the grouping. Is it Bacon? Was it a curator, then or later?
 * 1949 Head series: "the 1948 head". The reader has not been told what this is, and there is no link. We need a little more context for the article. Perhaps the section should begin with something more general about when he began painting "heads" / head series, before we move into what was happening around the 1949 exhibition.
 * Prose is great from there on. Is it correct that there is only one cite for the para that begins "The six 1949 heads depict isolated figures..."?
 * I've added a citation to Zweite which covers the same gound, draws similar comparisons, and that I was mindful of. Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ive clarified on this. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now: It is exceptional in his career that works of their relative poor quality survive; Bacon was ruthlessly self-critical and often slashed or abandoned canvasses before they were completed. When pressed again by Brausen in 1953 to produce works for a New York show she had been publicising for a year, he was full of doubt and destroyed most of what he had been working on, including several other popes. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The article gets stronger as it proceeds and is fascinating. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article lacks a section on provenance.
 * Your points are all good; some are very substantive and I need to go back to the sources before replying properly. But thank you indeed. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's been a lot of progress, but a few issues crept in during the radical surgery.
 * "Yet the older masters influence is apparent in many aspects of the painting." Is there a possessive apostrophe missing somewhere here?
 * The Initial section had more information, but the order was wrong - there was a reference to an exhibition without explanation, which came only two paragraphs later. I have attempted to fix this. But please check my fix - one of the weird things it highlighted was that at one point in Peppiatt it was claimed that he spent six months preparing "with determination" yet a few pages later he showed no interest until six weeks beforehand. I've taken a stab at what was meant, but you might want to check the source to see if I'm right!
 * Now reading He did not have a grand plan when he agreed to the show, but eventually found themes that interest him in his Head I of the previous year, and executed five progressively stronger variants in the final weeks before the November exhibition,[16][10] completing the series barely in time for the opening.[12] Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for a section on provenance...:-)hamiltonstone (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * hamilstone, I have most books printed on Bacon in the last 30 years (yeah, I know!), and am not finding anything re price or acquistion date. But have added a sect on provenance, which is short, for now as I dig further. I agree re the Hanover material, and have worked further on your suggestions. Thank you so much for such a thorough reading :) Ceoil (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those changes. I don't agree with every one of your recent copyedits, though many are improvements. I'm a support, but I still do not think a paragraph should begin with "His" - it should have a subject spelled out in some way ;-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed that. Tks again. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review I'm sure you can easily fix these issues. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you working on this Ceoil. Is it appropriate to force some image sizes? Usually we don't define the image size per WP:IMGSIZE except for the lede image unless there is some specific details that need to be shown.
 * Can we even justify the use of 4 (maybe only 3 - see Potemkin comment below) non-free images in a FA? File:Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.jpg does not have a rationale for this use and File:Head (1948).jpg just has a simple generic rationale instead of a specific one and those images should surely also have some critical commentary that helps justify their use.
 * File:Head (1948).jpg actually seems to be a freely licenced image even though you added a fair use rational last December; it is available at a slightly higher resolution on the commons as c:File:Eisenstein Potemkin 2.jpg which I think the colour is better.
 * The other 3 images are fine.
 * Thanks ww2. I cut the study after Vel, and went with the other version of the Potemkin. I tried removing the force imaging, and while it looked fine in fire fox, the images were totally oversized in ie, while logged in at the default thumbnail size. . Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, differennt browsers can act quite differently on images. I've unforced them again but used the "upright" code. They look smaller and fine in ffox and several other Mac browsers but you may not like it in ie (it's not available for Mac anyomre). Try it. The rational for File:Head (1948).jpg is still quite weak and could do with better justification. Otherwise all is good. ww2censor (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * upright works fine for me across browsers thanks. Re Head I; true enough. I added another rational, which might be inelegant and lacking in legalese, but is why I need to include it. What do you think. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy the "upright" formatting works because it still does not force readers into a particular size depending on their browser/screen combo. The rationale for Head I looks fine now. Thanks so much. ww2censor (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

'Comment leaning support, a few minor points:
 * Lede
 * "the sitter" the figure, correct, rather than the viewer? You might want to set this up by mentioning it is sitting.
 * Consider dividing the first paragraph after "airless void".
 * " The painting drew a mixed reaction" slightly ambiguous, as Three Figures is last referenced as a Bacon artwork.
 * There is no close quote to the Gowing quote.
 * "Bacon's exhibition a the Hanover Gallery " I would correct this but am doing this offline.
 * 1949 Head
 * The caption title is the only time you place "1949 head" in italics. In the lede, "head" is in quotes and not italicised.
 * Consider striking "internally". I'm not sure what it adds.
 * "opening at Erica Brausen's newly opened" I would change one or the other "open" variants.
 * The first paragraph mentions the production of five heads, and yet there are six?
 * "For Bacon the key aspect was that it appeared that the subject felt isolated," I would strike "it appeared that" as surplus.
 * Description
 * Was it Eichmann within the glass cage, or the trial?
 * "late 1930 broadcasters who warned against the impending calamity." late 1930s, I assume. I would make it clearer you are talking about war rather than Holocaust due to the recent Eichmann reference.
 * Consider reversing the second and third paragraphs of this section. The third paragraph really introduces the scream, yet you discuss it before that.
 * " about the still" What "still"?
 * Influences
 * "although it is a bust" Head Vi, I venture.
 * Titian is linked twice within a short span.
 * Critical reception
 * "When Bacon undertook the series late in 1948" you haven't mentioned this before, just that there was a 1948 head and that the 1949 heads were done under time pressure of the exhibition. You might want to mention this earlier in the article.
 * ''Three Studies ..." this has been linked before. Just saying.
 * "Brusen" Brausen?
 * "he commanded prices as high as £400 for single works, an unusual price" "prices" and "price" do not agree. And weren't artworks at the time generally sold in guineas, not pounds?
 * Fixed the prices thing, but re guineas I dont know, perhalps to a certain level. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, I'm sure there will be no trouble with these quibbles.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt. I have most of these sorted, but need to fill out the article re the 1949 exhibition. The c/e suggestions and reordering observations are very strong; I have a much better ordered lead now, which might keep the notorious Mr Lieber happy, as he mentioned flaws along the same line; I hope now largely resolved. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well if he says that I would certainly listen to him. Could you drop me a line when you are ready for me to take a second look?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support The context which has been inserted makes this a much more useable article. A few final points, which Ceoil can clean up at his leisure
 * ”Tangiers” should probably be Tangier.
 * ’’’the exhibition” … "at the Hanover” You have not defined what these mean. You should move the fuller discussion of Brausen, who she was, what she did, etc.  which comes in the third paragraph up here.
 * Head I is linked in consecutive paragraphs
 * "all pretence at presentation falls away” I think this would be stronger if you omitted “at presentation”
 * "in a pose" perhaps better "posed".
 * "an expression Bacon took a still he kept of the nurse screaming" some cleanup needed. Possibly missing word "from" before "a still"?
 * "and of Velázquez's portrayals of Philip IV, and" I would massage out one of the "and"s. Wouldn't this sentence be better off in the "Influences" section?
 * "Yet the older masters influence" missing apostrophe
 * Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All taken care of I think; and have consolidated the info re Brausen and the Hanover exhibition. Thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Gowing quote in the lead is long enough to need blockquoting
 * Fixed number of columns in reflist is deprecated in favour of colwidth
 * FN2: grammar
 * Peppiatte or Peppiatt?
 * FN31: Farr et al?
 * Use a consistent date format
 * Tate Papers should be italicized
 * No citations to Dawson
 * Gowing is listed as a source and mentioned by name, but there are no direct citations to his work
 * Hunter Sam or Hunter, Sam?
 * Thames & Hunson or Thames and Hudson? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I've got all these. Ceoil (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support a good read and excellent work...Modernist (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - a very good and interesting read. Hadn't gone through from top to bottom until today (going on record here to say it's not my favorite image), made a couple of tweaks. Re provenance mentioned above, I took it on myself to search and all I can find is this (not a fantastic source), and the Arts Council website gives the acquisition date. These might be helpful. Anyway, nice work, and a nice way to finish. Good job as always. Victoria (tk) 18:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Victoria. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I raised the provenance issue, i should add that I'm not expecting it to be long, particularly if the work didn't change hands much. It might only be a couple of sentences tacked on to 'critical reception'. But at present the article doesn't say whether the work was sold at the Hanover exhibition or who to, or how much for; it doesn't say who owns it now (other than the mention in the caption of the image), when they acquired it, or where it is currently hanging. Those are the details I'd be hoping for...hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hamiltonstone it will be a single sentance; Hanover..Hayward, prob in the lead. I'm thinking more about your comments re context, working....Ceoil (talk)
 * Sure - just make sure it is in the body text of the article as well as the lead. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * hamiltonstone, I've added a short section now on provenance, but even going through many books and articles, was unable to find the date of acquisition . 1952, found by Victoria. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.