Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Disasters of War/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:59, 31 October 2009.

The Disasters of War

 * ''Nominator(s): Johnbod, Modernist, JNW, Ceoil

A series of 82 engravings by Francisco Goya. Thanks to Yoman and the Outriggrs. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The existing alt text is quite good (thanks) but more than half the images lack alt text. Could you please add alt text for them? Please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. For the gallery please use Image gallery or one of the other techniques discussed in WP:PIC, as the gallery tag doesn't support alt text. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eubulides, I wasn't aware of the alt text tool, that makes it easier. Ceoil (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Eubulides, I am confused as to how to put the alt text into the 20 in the galleries...Modernist (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several ways; please see WP:PIC. Perhaps the simplest is to use Image gallery. I helped get started on that by to use that template, with empty alt text entries that can be filled in. Eubulides (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Eubulides for setting things up, I am starting the alt text in the gallery now...Modernist (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The alt text is finished - although the gallery alt text is not registering in the alt text tool, top right, but the text is there....Modernist (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's working now. Wow, thanks for all that work. The alt text made me weep. It was that good. Eubulides (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Eubulides for all of your help...Modernist (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review - No issues for me; the two fair use images seem fine. The image layout might be improved, but that is an unrelated matter. NW ( Talk ) 04:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the img placement. Thinking....Ceoil (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - this article, which I reviewed on DYK a while back, is looking quite good now. I haven't read it all right through but it looks well written, comprehensive and logically structured. A minor observation is that the "Influence" section seems a tad brief. Surely this series has had more influence than on a picture by Dali and a series of sculptures by a couple of modern artists? I'm not sure an issue like that alone would cause me to reject this for FA, but it does seem like an oddly unclimactic end to the article. Gatoclass (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A good point; part of the trouble is that critics tend, understandably, to talk about the two big war paintings The Third of May 1808 and The Second of May 1808 together with the Disasters, or to take them with Los Caprichos or other print series, or just refer to Goya's oeuvre as a whole. A passage like the first para here is typical. But stuff can be added here.  That they remained unknown for 50+ years is another issue - it probably took until after 1900 before they were widely known across Europe. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could this be mentioned in the article (that the Disasters are often discussed in conjunction with Goya's other works)? A few sentences perhaps? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this might be in order, yes. I'll see what I can track down. Ta. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * The only concern I have is with the link to the clark ref in the bibliography. Does that cite have permission to host that excerpt? Note I'm not questioning the use of the work as a source, just the link as a possible link to a copyright violation (which it might not be, it just wasn't readily apparant on the page that they had permission).
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt they do have permission, & the text is not viewable on Google books (in the UK anyway). Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if we don't have a weblink to the source, the source can just not have a link, if it's determined that it's being hosted without permission. Online links aren't required, and the book itself seems reliable as a "dead tree source". Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an RS alright. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have an edition of Clark, Kenneth. Looking at Pictures to hand for a page ref? It's a bit of a nonsense having to add one, as there are loads of editions with different paginations because of different formats & illustrations etc, & it can easily be found by the index, but I suppose this is required. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments I peer reviewed this and think it is very close to ready
 * The lead says 82 prints, but Note one says 80 (plus 3). Which is it? Or can the note be made clearer? See below too
 * Clarified. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it now says 80 prints in the first published edition. which is not that clear. Could it be something like There were 80 prints in the first published edition, but Goya's own copy had 82 and this number is considered definitive. instead (not that exact wording, but a little more detail)? I read the notes and this is right in the lead sentence and it doesn't really tell me that much as is. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearer now, I hope. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the Influence section should be mentioned more clearly in the lead (even if it is just a sentence)
 * I added a single sentence to the lead; I think its enough. Ceoil (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - there were some apparent typos I tried to fix - please check my edit. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Background section, this needs a ref After Napoleon convinced Ferdinand to return Spanish rule to Charles IV, the latter was left with no choice but to abdicate, on 19 March 1808, in favour of Joseph Bonaparte.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Creation section, this needs a ref A number of other scenes are known to have been related to him by others.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Same section, the sentences beginning The titles of a number of scenes link them in pairs or larger groups... to the end of that paragraph need a ref. I would also link the prints to their images on Commons (so Examples include plates 2 and 3 (With or without reason and The same), ...
 * This is evidenced by the titles and images themselves, surely? Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This sounds a bit like Original research, but I guess it does make sense. I do note that a rare sympathetic image of the clergy in the series needs a ref (not self evident). Please link the images. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I linked the images, at least. I have the source for this somewere, just need to dig it out. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this needs a ref as well, and I think there should be an explanation of which 2 were not in the 1863 edition: There is therefore a distinction between the published edition of 1863, with 80 plates, and the full series in the album, with 82. Art historians generally do not count the three small Prisioneros as part of the Disasters series. This is mentioned later, but there is not really a discussion of why two were omitted in 1863.
 * Clarified. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please link to the plate and provide the Plate number for this as detailed in such plates as No quieren (They do not want to), which shows an elderly woman wielding a knife in defence of a young girl being assaulted by a soldier.[37] In general I would link to the plate each time one is mentioned.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also give the plate numbers showing this in note 12 A number of plates show nuns being raped.
 * In the Interpretation section this needs a ref This impression is due in part to the lack of consciously artful presentation that would distance the viewer from the brutality of the subjects, as in works of Baroque martyrdom, and to compositions that refuse to offer the stability of traditional narrative. Instead, Goya's images are composed for the most disturbing impact.
 * Done. JNW (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not strike my comments, that is my prerogative (even if I agree the point has been addressed, at FAC the comments are struck by the person who made them). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right, my carelessness--no intent to undermine or negate your words. It did not occur to me that striking the comment was a faux pas, but rather was meant as an acknowledgment that the concern had been addressed. JNW (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I happened to agree with the strike, so no harm done. Just wanted to remind you of the usual protocol here, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the Notes seem like they need refs too.


 * Some of this comes from the notes & refs being split up I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note 1 is OK as it is discussed in detail in the Creation section with references. Note 2 seems to me to need a ref - I do not see mention of other editions elsewhere. Note 3 gets the self evident pass. Notes 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 13 have refs. Note 7 is about aquatints which are mentioned in the text with refs. Note 8 refers to a website, please give the link here. Note 12 is mentioned above (links to the plates would suffice).
 * Note 2 now moved lower down with ref. Note 8 linked. They have all been merged with the refs again, but this diff shows the numbers as above. Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to suggest that Hemingway was influenced by the Disasters of War
 * I added a paragraph about Hemingway's being influenced by the Disasters of War in his Death in the Afternoon about Spanish bullfighting...Modernist (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very close to supporting, but wanted to make these comments first. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - a few comments from the lead.
 * "The Disasters of War (Spanish: Los Desastres de la Guerra) are a series of 82...", but then "The series is generally divided thematically..." Is there one series? Singular or plural? Is The Disasters of War, considered as a whole, a work of art or several?
 * Sorted Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "In the event, The Disasters were not published until 1863,..." - Do you mean "In any event"?
 * Removed. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "and set its face against reform." - Although I get what you mean, is it the best wording to say that a monarchy set its face? (Does this mean it set its outward appearance only e.g. face ?)
 * Reworded as "rejected". Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice that there are still places where there is a relapse into plural, e.g. "The Disasters of War were not made public until 1863, when they were published by..." under "Influence". But in the section before, "Interpretation",  it is "As a body of work, art historian Fred Licht (b. 1928) has described the Disasters of War..." it is one body. Maybe there is historical inconsistency in how it (they) is/are referred to.
 * On reading through the article more, I think part of the problem is that in some places The Disasters of War is referred to as a collection of series, and in others as in itself a series. So, I just think this needs to be clarified. Not a big deal but would provide consistency.
 * I have fixed this instance. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely it isn't actually unclear? It is a series of 82 prints, so either singular or plural may be appropriate, although if the word series is used it should be singular. Where is it referred to as a "collection of series"? The series falls into three groups, but that is different. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I guess it is just me. I'll butt out from further comment. Thanks.  Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mattisse, these comments were help full. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I have some prose and comprehensiveness concerns.


 * I think that this article needs another thorough copyedit. I copyedited while I was reading and found misspelled words and other basic errors. I hope I have corrected them all, but I think another pair of eyes would help.


 * There are some awkward sentences and poorly constructed paragraphs. Again, I have tried to fix some of these as I was editing, but I think another copyedit is necessary. Here are some examples:


 * Goya was 62 when he began work on the prints, in ill-health and near-deaf from a sickness whose nature remains unclear. - This sentence does not flow from the rest of the paragraph.
 * I've trimmed this and place it else where in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The reigning Spanish sovereign, Charles IV (1748–1819), was internationally regarded as ineffectual,[6] and was on bad terms with his pro-British heir, the future Ferdinand VII of Spain (1784–1883). - Could we say something more specific than "bad terms"?
 * his position was threatened by Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the scenes described show the aftermath of battle, and include mutilated torsos and limbs mounted on trees, like "fragments of marble sculpture" - This sentence seems tacked-on to the end of the paragraph.
 * Moved into the "war" section. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 *  In his India ink wash drawing We cannot look at This (1814–24), as with the earlier The Straw Mannequin (1791–92), which shows a ridiculed, denigrated body tossed in the air, he looked at the idea of a humiliated inverted body, in comic mode in the former, with pathos and tragedy in the latter. - "ridiculed" and "denigrated" don't sound quite right


 * The first and second paragraphs of "Interpretation" should be joined into a single paragraph.
 * Agree, done. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no recorded comments from Goya about the series, except for the titles or captions for each print and his handwritten title on an album of proofs given to a friend: Fatal consequences of Spain's bloody war with Bonaparte, and other emphatic caprices (Fatales consequencias de la sangrienta guerra en España con Buonaparte, Y otros caprichos enfáticos). - This seems like a very specific detail for the second sentence.
 * Re-jigged. The "Disasters of War" is not Goya's title; this is, and I think needs to be in the first para for this reason, plus it is a useful and vivid summary, and his only overall comment on the series. The Boston MFA, who have another important collection of proofs, use "Fatales consequencias de la sangrienta guerra en España con Buonaparte. Y otros caprichos enfaticos [Disasters of War]" as their title for the series (sometimes anyway - see their online images), though the British Museum & Spanish National Library are more typical in just using the published title. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the "The Hanging" is well-placed. Perhaps it belongs in a section that discusses influences?
 * Fair enough, will toy around. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * More is said about the actual famine in the "Famine" section than about Goya's representation of it. Please exapnd a bit on the plates themselves.
 * Agree, will expand. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For a series as long, complex, and famous as "The Disasters of War", I feel that the "Interpretation" section is very short. There does not seem to be much in the article on Goya's distinctive artistic style in these prints. The emphasis in the article is on the content of the prints, rather than the style. When I learned about these prints as an undergraduate, we learned about how Goya uses perspective in unique ways, for example. I feel like this kind of material is missing from the article.
 * Yes. This is a crucial point. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the gallery should contain all of the plates or not be in the article at all.
 * Thats a lot of plates. I think a selection is as good as we can get away with. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently in the article we have 36 plates; 24 plates that are in the galleries and 12 plates in the article text. We have links to the entire set of plates as well. To add 46 more images to the gallery seems excessive, and eliminating the gallery seems inappropriate...Modernist (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. Several plates within the text and more in the gallery seems like the way to go, especially with links to the whole set. I don't think it's imperative to include all the plates (an article on Monet's waterlilies, for example, need not picture each one), and to have none would be, well, a disaster. JNW (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree we need some, but not all. Plus the reproductions from Commons are not wonderful & rather variable in quality and visibility. On the talk page we were going to do 3 mini-galleries under the different groups, maybe still with others in a gallery at the end. This might help. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I subdivided the gallery into three separate galleries for each subsection of the images, and one larger gallery with a mixture of plates at the end...Modernist (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could we add more informative captions, indicating why these particular plates have been chosen? What are they showing? Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They have been chosen, not perhaps after an exhaustive process, as having strong images relatively well-reproduced on Commons, and spread across the series. What any of the Disasters is "showing" is rather a minefield - generally we have only Goya's often enigmatic titles to go on. But information can be added to some. Or people could try looking at them. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I gotta think about this, I really do not want to encroach upon Goya's titles too far and the intentions of each print is pretty clear. I will add some words if the context seems apropos...Modernist (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added some, especially on the last group, where specific interpretations have been suggested by scholars. They all have very full alt text (thanks Modernist!) which for the early ones is I think all that needs to be said: "A struggle between nine or more civilians including both men and women against the soldiers. Several civilians have fallen dead, a woman prepares to throw a stone at a soldier's head, while another woman rams a soldier with a long pole, he falls sword in hand, others fight at close quarters with swords and knives. A uniformed soldier to the far right fires his rifle at the civilians shooting them down.|Plate 5: Y son fieras (And they are wild beasts or And they fight like wild beasts)" - what can one add?  Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added some more captions, most images have captions now although they all have lengthy alt text explanations as well...Modernist (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Influence" section seems to be a bit of a prose list, particularly the last two paragraphs.
 *  Since their publication, the prints have had a wide influence, on Spanish painter Salvador Dalí and American writer Ernest Hemingway. - This sentence from the lead is not really borne out in the section. I'm wondering if the "Influence" section is incomplete - I find it hard to believe that the primary influence of this work is during the late 20th century! There seems to be an over-emphasis on the Chapmans.
 * At least it could be more general and less specific. As it stand the Chapman bros needs to be trimmed. Will do. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a bit of a rag-bag. Part of the problem is, as mentioned at Ruhrfish's comments, that the influence tends to merge with that of the Tres de Mayo & other Goya works. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ruhrfisch that this should be stated in the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful! Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is. I need to absorbe and implement, and I'll let you know when done. Thanks! Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - just leave a message on my talk page. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Status update here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given this I am no longer watching this FAC. Best of luck with the revised version, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.