Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes


 * 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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes
self-nom This article written by an art historian on a subject of some dissension, has been carefully editted and referenced to incorporate material from both the restorers and some major critics of the restoration. Amandajm 07:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Raul654 17:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Incorporated list into other sections as per Raul's suggestion

Why is there a hyphen in the ":-" construction instead of a solitary colon?  Pagra shtak  15:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also having reference issues with this one. For example, " There is a particular small but extraordinarily dynamic feature of Michelangelo's work which, here and there, has disappeared for ever. This is the eyeballs. " (which should be reworded) is referenced with simply "Jesse Lunette". It took me a while to realize that this wasn't a person's name, and it still doesn't help me now that I've figured that much out.
 * Don't bold names in the references, and format your external links. For example, in "Oberlin Alumni Magazine, Fall 2002. [5] Accessed Jan. 23 2007." the external link shouldn't read "5", but the name of the article. You should add the author here as well, by the way. Standard cite templates such as Citation, Cite web, and Cite book would probably help you out in this regard. In the reference "Beck etc.", what exactly is the et cetera here? Other random style issues: Wikify your dates; I shouldn't see "11th December, 1999".
 * Need help! I'm hopeless at that sort of thing! Who do you recommend who does good tidy-ups of that sort?
 * ✅ un-bolded the names
 * ✅ un-bolded the names
 * The answer to your last question about the hyphen is because that is the way we were taught to do it, about a hundred years ago! Amandajm 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC) ✅I think I found them all.

&mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC) The style of the "The cause for concern" section is very odd. It's written more like a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia article:
 * The new name of the article is better, but the article and title are inconsistent about the pluralization of "fresco". ✅
 * The title of this section needs to be more descriptive and/or less sensational.
 * OK✅


 * "the worst fears of the critics were confirmed once the ceiling was completed" doesn't give anything to the reader, besides attempting to take a position on an obviously contentious issue.
 * True, Oh dear! and I thought I'd tried to be balanced!✅


 * "Arguimbau, on his website, quotes Collalucci, the head of the team, as contradicting himself on this matter" -- if this is important, then it should be explained in the article how he contradicted himself. If it's not actually important, it shouldn't be here.
 * Reply It's in the footnotes. I went carefully through Collallucci's written statement and recorded the contradictions. I'll move it up. It really makes the man look a fool, though.
 * "But perhaps not all", "But it is more than relief"-- these kinds of short sentences seem out of place compared to the normal writing style used here.
 * Reply, I'll check it out.✅
 * "It is the three-dimensionality which art-lovers expect to see in the work of the man who sculpted Moses" -- who says this?
 * Reply Argy-bargy, Beck and AmandaJM!✅
 * "The reason for their reluctance to produce the detailed photos, which would probably have put to rest the worst fears of many interested people, was the intention of the company to produce a large limited-edition two-volume coffee-table book" -- the opinion portion of this line should be presented as such, unless the writer of the NYT article is a mindreader. --- RockMFR 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Good point!✅
 * Reply Good point!✅


 * Comment:You seem to have nominated a lot of pages recently claiming they are written by architectural or art historians. I find this concerning as I see no well known architectural historians in the history. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia has to be beyond reproach in its claims - I would like to know who these people are and their proven qualifications (or list of publications) to be so termed. If these facts are not available I don't think the claim of qualified authorship should be made. I have commented in full on only one of your nominations as I feel you should concentrate on one page at a time. Multiple nominations are discouraged. Giano 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I ask again " This article written by an art historian " who exactly? Giano 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is beside the point, article depends on its citations, not on who originally contributed to it.--Grahamec 02:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No it is not far from it. We are told it is written by an expert, if qualifications are to be mentioned they need to be backed up. Giano 06:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No qualifications are mentioned in the text of the article, the claim in the nomination above was in my opinion unfortunate, but it does not affect the quality of the article.--Grahamec 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely. If we are told an article was written by an acknowledged expert one automatically gives it greater credence and assumes it has a greater reliability than a page which is not. This subject is contraversial in the art world as it is, which makes such claims even more important to be verified. Now is this page written by an acknowledged expert or not? - and if so acknowledged by who and with proof. Giano 07:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support.--Grahamec 12:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments J.W inklethorpe talk 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ref 3 lacks the name of the volume it appears in. Refs need page numbers as appropriate.
 * Response There were four examples. removed two of them. Don't know where it says that "The Creation of Adam" is one of the most famous paintings in the world. It's simply reproduced in every single art book, without "words to that effect".
 * Umm, not sure what you're responding to, here? Anyhow: refs, pages numbers, etc... J.W inklethorpe talk 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about the use of an "unnamed writer for Carrier". When it comes down to it, that source is a piece of corporate fluff. It's fine when used for facts about air conditioning, but there's no way of knowing if the writer's opinion holds any weight. Most likely, it's a PR person. I'm sure there's some more reliable quotes out there, perhaps from the restoration team itself?


 * I think that the "corporate fluff", as you call it, has a place as well. OK, I'll find another quotation to put in as well. ✅ added another little quote. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to find an independent writer who praises the restoration. Amandajm 09:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My question would be: why is this writer to be given weight in this article? There is no evidence that they have expertise in anything other than airconditioning.J.W inklethorpe talk 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply It's not a case of giving them weight. It's a case of being unable to find positive criticism for the job by anyone who didn't have a specific interest. Obviously the person who wrote this was paid to write it. But reading beyond the rhetoric, some of what it says is true beyond question: "The accumulated grime of centuries dulled colors and erased detail."
 * Putting it in the article gives it weight. If some of it is true beyond question, what parts of it aren't?J.W inklethorpe talk 22:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, even if a paragraph contains no controversy, a basic ref to a factual source at the end of it is good practice. This is as much about allowing others to follow up on what they read as anything else.
 * Even if a lot of the details in the article are "commonly known", there are a lot of statements that require specific citation. ✅
 * ✅ added more citations


 * Something like "the removal of the carbon black has made all four scenes undeniably less dramatic and terrifying. Particularly noticeable is the loss of depth in the Death of Haman" contains enough subjective opinions to require some sort of citation, as just one example. J.W inklethorpe talk 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. Firstly, the scenes are "dramatic and terrifying". They represent:
 * 1. Judith loading the decapitated severed head of Holofernes into a basket, and looking back over her shoulder at the body which is threshing its limbs like the proverbial "chook with its head cut off" (we call'em chooks where I come from!)
 * 2. David, a teenage boy, astride the body of Goliath who is still alive and trying to get up, raising the sword to hack his head orf.
 * 3. A seething mass of bodies of people, both dead and alive, who have all been bitten by poisonous snakes.
 * 4. Some people sitting around a table, the King in bed, and a couple of servants sitting on the steps watching the death throes of Haman, who is tied up to a tree, set diagonally to the plane of the picture, which is quite an extraordinary innovation.
 * So what do I cut? I s'pose I can cut "terrifying" as being POV, but "dramatic" has got to stay, regardless of who did or didn't say it. I think the scenes could probably be described as "violent" without it being POV either. Assassination, retribution, hand to hand combat and mortal agony aredefinitely violent!


 * Reply 2. "Particularly noticeable".... I've written this elsewhere. The reason why the loss of the black is much more particularly noticeable in some fescoes than others is entirely dependent upon the condition of the fresco when the black was applied. If the fresco was still damp, then the carbon black bonded with it much more permanenetly than if the fresco was dry. The black was essentially the last stage in the process, because Mick was using it to pick out details, create depth in the shadows, and in places, make figures really jump out of their background in a dramatic way. This latter was particularly the case with the Haman figure. It wasn't the case with a lot of the other scenes. So, by the removal of the black, Haman has been much more affected than the other pendentives, and to a degree than is probably only equalled by the loss of "radical foreshortening" of Jonah.Amandajm 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't looking at "dramatic and terrifying". I was thinking of "undeniably less" and "particularly noticable". These are strong expressions and therefore challengeable; citation required. I get your explanation, I just think it needs supporting by an external published source. J.W inklethorpe talk 22:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If, according to the article, "disagreements about this, by Beck and other critics, have been vociferous and are unsolved" then a lot of the material is likely to be challenged and requires more careful references. A few examples from the Colours section:
 * "Perceptive viewers of the Sistine Chapel ceiling have always been aware..." if it's perceptive viewers only, perhaps a reference to some of them would be appropriate.
 * Yes, this can be cited.✅


 * "it ought not to have been any revelation to the restorers." an opinion, and so needs a reference to whose opinion it is.
 * Hmmm! that is definitely a bit POV, that is! It needs rewording.
 * Basically, anyone who has ever seen a fresco that is in reasonably good condition (one without a great deal of overpainting or soot deposit) ought to have known what the palette is likely to be. But your "average viewer" (the thousands of tourists who flock to the Sistine Chapel every day) tends to accept the colours that they see as being those that the artist painted. On the other hand, Mancinelli cites a number of writers who had seen through the gloom.
 * I am one of those to whom the lightness and brightness of the colours have always been apparent, and I have tried to get my students to perceive Michelangelo as a colourist. "Now you see but through a glass, darkly..."
 * ✅ reworded some of this.Amandajm 09:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "One figure that has particularly lost its impact is that of Jonah" again, more in the region of opinion.
 * Well, yes.... and then again, it is overwhelmingly the case. The reason is that Jonah is radically foreshortened. To a much greater extent than any other major figure on the ceiling, and also, he occupies the prime position. Centrally placed and directly above the Last Judgement. So that anything that effects the tonality of Jonah is going to have a more radical effect than on almost any other figure. This is particularly noticeable because the painting beneath him has been worked over with lapis lazuli, giving it intense colouration. It also has much stronger tonality than the ceiling. And above it sits Jonah looking all pale and peaky, and but a shadow of his former self.
 * ✅ Quoted Vasari on the previous state of the fresco, moved the pic so it is more obvious and reworded the statement.Amandajm 09:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, but if "lessening the impact of the radical foreshortening described by Vasari" has occured, then says who? Ultimately, Vasari is giving a subjective opinion, and then someone else centuries later is saying that the restored figure doesn't match up to vasari's description. I'm not yet convinced this isn't more in the realm of opinion, and needs to be presented as such. Feel free to pursuade me otherwise, of course. J.W inklethorpe talk 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the mode of Vasari's opinion, I suppose, is subjective. But the basis of what he states is not. He observes, correctly and beyond argument, that the surface on which the picture is painted juts forward. (Structurally, it is a pendentive which supports the ceiling above it.) And while the actual architecture just forward, the figure painted on it leans backwards at a very steep angle, defying the surface upon which it is painted. This is not a matter of POV. It is a statement of fact.


 * There is no other major figure on the ceiling which is comparable. This type of foreshortening only occurs elsewhere in some of the bodies of the violent corner pendentives


 * Before Michelangelo, almost ever example of radical foreshortening was applied to a dead body, or someone asleep, eg a corpse in Uccello Battle of San Romano, Mantegna's "Pieta", Ghirlandio's "Massacre of the Innocence". Giotto's radical foreshortening of the arms of the apostle in the "Lamentation" was rarely emulated. So when Vasari described Jonah, he was talking about a work which had become exemplary to artists of the 16th century.....But all this is too much to say within the context of the article.


 * I don't know how many days it took to paint the Jonah pendentive. On the evidence of what I can see from reproductions, I would say definitely three and possibly more. Some of the black appears to have been applied while the plaster was still fresh. In other areas, the black has gone, which indicates that it was painted when the fresco had dried and hence was less well attached, so it has come off in the recent cleaning.

In a painting that was not foreshortened, this would effect only the tonality and the detail. But because foreshortening is the most significant compositional feature of this picture (as against contrasting colours, harmonious forms etc etc) then it is the foreshortening that has been affected. In the Daniel pendentive, foreshortening is also affected, but less radically, because it involves a leg, in particular, rather than a whole, extremely dynamic figure.


 * Note. In the case of Jonah, (and the other lesser figures mentioned such as the body in the "Brazen Serpent"), the foreshortening is such that it requires an adjective to set it aside from what one might term "normal" foreshortening such as that of a forearm, hand or knee . I can use "extreme", "radical" "dynamic" or some such. But it needs such to adequately describe what is happening.
 * Reply, I'll take another look at the bits you've commented on. Amandajm 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so "radical foreshortening" is a fair summary of what Vasari said. That wasn't actually what I was getting at. It's the (possible) opinion that the figure now has less impact than what Vasari described. Basicly, we're looking at the figure now and saying "Well, that's definitely not as good as Vasari said it was". Is this "Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true."? (WP:WHEN) J.W inklethorpe talk 22:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I can fix that. I thought it was the whole bit, that you needed convincing abouut, not just the single sentence. I agree it's a problem. Amandajm 23:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

*"A comparison of the "restored" and "unrestored" figure gives strong evidence for the case that Michelangelo worked over this figure in a wash of carbon black, and that the technique was planned ahead" I can find nothing about this in the ref given. Could you point me to it?
 * Thanks  for observing this. Inadvertently cited AW instead of PLA. ✅

J.W inklethorpe talk 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I have made a few edits to the article (last some days ago) & think it is finally there now. Johnbod 02:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Quite honestly this is the best article I have ever read on wikipedia. The prose is brilliant, the images are good quality, well integrated, and the side by side comparisons enlightening. An outstanding job. I do have a few issues, some more and some less trivial.
 * The intro mentions that there are critics of the restoration, but does not give any clue as to why they opposed it. ✅
 * The article ends on a really sour note, a quote that begins: "The [so-called] Glorious Restoration of Michelangelo's frescoes has destroyed them forever." OK, this is a view by one critic. Let's not end the article on such a disparaging remark! I know not everyone is happy with it, but as one reads to the end of the article, the prose takes on a dramatically critical tone. I'm not suggesting you remove criticism, but just make sure it is a little more balanced, and don't pile it on right at the end!
 * Reply, One option is to move that quotation that says that "Every book... will have to be rewritten" down to the end. But if I do that, then it will need a lot of qualifying with positive comments about the colour. Honestly, the more I look at the before and after pics of the "Jesse Lunette", the more sour I feel.
 * Done added a short section at the end with two quotes and a gracious statement by Pietrangeli (not the guy in charge of the restoration, but the one who established proceedures back in the 70s) aaand turned up some good stuff which I am going to write in... tomorrow, because it's late in the land of Oz.Amandajm 13:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The caption for Image:Sistine Chapel TwoSpandrels.jpg and some of the other images is way too long. Trim them down and put the rest in the body section. (see Captions) For example, you could try something like this:
 * "The spandrel on the left retained the crisp black definition on the architectural motifs after restoration, suggesting Michaelangelo completed it while the plaster was still wet. The other spandrel lost its detailing after cleaning because the highlights were added after the plaster had dried." (44 words vs. 99 words and makes the point)
 * Reply I'll see what I can do
 * "The penultimate restoration was undertaken by the Restoration Laboratory of the Vatican Museum..." can we have a little more detail in this section, it feels a little thin.
 * Agree, but that is all the information that I have available.
 * "the team of restorers worked initially from aluminium scaffolding..." implies that they took a different strategy later on, but the article doesn't mention this.
 * Reply. I see. It wasn't the material nature of the scaffolding that changed, it was the structure, which is explained, but the fact that aluminium is highlighted draws attention to the material. I'll try to reword it.✅


 * One of the captions seems to have some kind of weird thing going on: Template:Ref labels
 * Rude word ✅
 * "...was built within the Vatican..." The Vatican is a big place with many buildings. Can we be more specific?
 * Yes✅
 * "Head Restorer of Papl Monuments" I assume you mean "Papal"
 * Yes ✅


 * In the criticism section it says the restorers "...took a universal approach to the restoration" but earlier in the article, it says: "The continued scientific analysis and the response of the restorers to the particular problems was to be an ongoing part of the process, rather than the conservation team deciding on a single treatment for every part of the building." Which seems to be in conflict.
 * Reply Yes, the do conflict, don't they? (I've moved this down to link it with comment below Amandajm 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC))


 * "An important part of modern restoration proceedure, as established by these rules, is the study and analysis of the artwork..." There are other things too, one thing that is very important to conservators is making changes that are reversible and there are other things too that must have influenced this restoration team. What are they?
 * Reply. Unfortunately, I'm locked into what I can get from Colalucci. He says that there are two things- Procedure and Method. He says that Procedure is so on and so on.
 * I read Colalucci's chapter and extrapolated the Aims of the restorers, which I then wrote in list form, basing them on the rules as set down by Carlo Pietrangeli, mentioned but not quoted by Colalucci. I am aware of what the rules are and have written specs based on them, but I don't own a copy. And because I don't own a copy and can't cite them exactly, it could fall into the category of Personal Research. So I rewrote the section, incorporating it into the section about "Interventions". If you want to look at the list, go back about a week in the history, and you'll find it all there. Amandajm 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply OK, I got really radical. I reread the list and put it back. It's all there, alright.. Every single point on the list is stated by one of these guys, but not in a neat precise orderly manner. I'd be happier if it was. But it is plain that those were the aims, and, on second or third thoughts, they ought to be included.


 * "as the range of colours same colours appear..." needs a fix. ✅
 * And finally, there seems to be spaces between the refs and the end of sentences. Refs should always follow without a space.✅

Okay, sorry for the tedious list but great work! Jeff Dahl 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Never mind the tedium! Thanks for the encouragement. Amandajm 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't know if this was intentional but "Jeremiah lamenting the destruction of Jerusalem." image illustrates the section on criticism, reflecting the emotional state of some of the critics, which seems particularly appropriate. Jeff Dahl 03:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed the same thing - see "Resolved stuff from Raul" further up on this page. Raul654 04:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Having such a ceiling must have made sitting through a boring church service much easier. One wonders if Julius II ever regretted the decision to have it painted after looking out at his congregation staring up at the frescoes during a sermon. :) Jeff Dahl 06:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The ceiling is a sermon. Amandajm 23:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.