Talk:Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:14, 31 December 2014 editVictoriaearle (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,095 edits →Seraph quote: another ps← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:08, 5 February 2015 edit undoFACBot (talk \| contribs)Bots53,112 edits Promoting 'Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck)' to Featured Article statusNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{ArticleHistory
⚫	~~{{featured~~ article candidates\|Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck)/archive1}}
			\|currentstatus=FA
⚫	{{WikiProject Art\|class=~~start~~}}

			\|action1=FAC
			\|action1date=2015-02-05
		⚫	\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck)/archive1
			\|action1result=promoted
			\|action1oldid=645189943
			}}

		⚫	{{WikiProject Art\|class = FA}}

	==Luber==		==Luber==

Revision as of 23:08, 5 February 2015

Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 5, 2015	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Arts FA‑class

	Arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Luber

We used Luber for the Dresden Triptych in the section about portable altarpieces, but the source is mostly about this painting - I remember at the time thinking it was a lovely painting. If I remember correctly the small version was meant to be a portable replica to take on pilgrimage. I'm glad you're not shy about starting new articles, because I never get around to it. If you take down the do not edit tag before the end of the weekend I might be able to add some bits if you don't mind having me jump in. And then maybe, if a miracle happens, I'll try to submit for DYK. Will have to find the file first. That might be a challenge. And then read it. Another challenge. Victoria (tk) 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

ha. Anyway thanks muchly for the high quality additions today, and for sending the journal articles, the page is taking form now. Its an intersesting subject, and I'm learning a lot about the techniques of art historians as I go through the sources. Of which there are *many*. Ceoil (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Just when you thought you were out, they pull you back in". I suppose we have a collab on our hands here; I'm certainly interested. How are you fixed? Ceoil (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That about sums it up. Yes, I am interested; I seem to have jumped right in last night. Victoria (tk) 13:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

P.s - lots of reading for this one! Victoria (tk) 20:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Image repositery

DYK

I tried. I really did. But it's a big red mess: . Hopefully someone will fix it; I have to go offline now. Was at least worth a try. Please rewrite the hook if you don't like. And don't laugh too hard!! Victoria (tk) 17:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Structure

I seem to have gone on a huge digression about the Adornes family, mostly because it's fascinating (and mentioned in the sources) but I'm beginning to think this page will pose some challenges with structure. The source I'm currently reading, Luber's "Patronage and Pilgrimage" has quite a lot about the Franciscan tradition of pilgrimage, which I think would be interesting but prob needs its own section. Being long-winded here, but should I just go ahead and write sections, stuff them somewhere, and we can shove around later and snip out what we don't need or don't want? Victoria (tk) 17:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep on going, I'd say; we can rearrange later. I'll be back tomorrow. Meanwhile, is worth watching if you havnt already. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Also, I'm still reading and just found the chapter re the iconography, so need to stop for a bit to read and process. Thanks very much for the link, haven't seen that yet. Looks fascinating. Victoria (tk) 18:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Landscape

I've just restructured the landscape section - quite a lot, . If it's not good, it's okay to roll it back. I was trying to structure from general critical analyses about landscape to more specific descriptions (with analyses woven in) of mountains, rocks, water, plants, etc. Not sure I accomplished what I wanted. But I'll leave the landscape section alone for now. Also, am getting a little antsy and am about to make a push to finish up shoving in the rest of the content I'd sandboxed (yeah, I know, during xmas no less), but I've feel that I've been hogging the page and I should be stepping away. Victoria (tk) 20:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks much better to me. Reading through again....Ceoil (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Good, ok. Antsyness now gone & struck (too much rushing around yesterday). Will be back to address inlines etc … sometime. M xmas to you and yrs. Victoria (tk) 20:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

1998 exhibition

I added mention of that in the lead for the failed DYK attempt but we don't mention it in the article. Should we keep it there and mention somewhere in the article or remove from the lead? I'd be tempted to remove, but it was fairly well covered in the press. Victoria (tk) 02:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

My impression, second and third hand, is that both panels were widely accepted as JvE origionas only after the 1998 exhibition. They might have been before by close specialists, but it did not trickle down into recieved openion until after. The fashion until then was for the phili panel. We need to include the exhib in the lead, but better phrase it; I'll think it through. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, changed my mind in the past few minutes b/c I have Dhanens open in front of me (and I tweaked that section a bit). She only puts them in the "unsure" category, but the research in prep for the exhibition and tech analysis seems to have made the case. Reminder: there's more that needs to be added re the underdrawings in the Turin panel tying it to other works, ~~if not already done~~. Anyway, I'll leave the lead to you. And then we prob need to tack on a section tying it all up w/ the exhibition. Victoria (tk) 03:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you will find much secondard info on the exhib, considering that openion changed so much afterwards. Any reassments would have been foolish. What we have seems enough. Looking through sources. Ceoil (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've struck that, poorly worded and I'm getting tired. I've stuck it in. I meant it was part of that examination and that if we haven't we should mention. Victoria (tk) 03:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Np. bleary eyed here too. We are getting there, slowly, incoherently. Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to break for tonight. I went off to Commons to look at pics. There is a Bellini (I think) w/ the exact same rocks. Will search for it tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats fine, long as you dont hit me as Deor did tonight with a "gotta ya", that stuff is too easy, and frankly the mark of a boring and tedious mind. But anyway, I might go for a nom here in a day or too, if you feel prepared. Ceoil (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to confess I've not yet read top to bottom, so would like to do that first. Will read it in the morning. I don't have anything else to add, so once I've read through am ok to have you nom it. Victoria (tk) 04:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Seraph quote

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Copied from FAC In this depiction he sees "a man like a seraph having six wings, standing over him with hands outstretched and feet joined together, fixed to a cross. Two wings were raised above his head, two were spread out for flight, and two veiled the whole body": again, we need attribution. Is there some reason this needs to be quoted? Many Wikipedians set the bar for what "needs to be quoted" too high, imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I quoted it because I'm a pagan and don't always understand Christian symbols, because I like it, and because I was afraid of straying too far to the source. Can be completely rewritten if required. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC) The only requirement is for attribution. I'm smply one of those with a high bar for "needs to be quoted", as quoting draws attention to the quote itself, which I feel is often WP:UNDUE. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Would like to keep it. It's an important concept imo. Basically the entire point of the painting. How often does a six winged seraph christ appear in front of someone? Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I disagree about undue but won't argue. I'll remove it and have removed all the quotes in the sections I've written. I've left the ones in the sections Ceoil's written. But want to go on record to say that this is an issue that's inconsistent from reviewer to reviewer and when this FAC is over I might seek clarification in terms of whether we should be quoting or not. I believe, strongly, that best practice is to wrap a phrase or sentence in quotations rather than having to revert to close paraphrasing. That could just be my training though. Victoria (tk) 23:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I wasn't arguing it was actually undue in this case, only questioning whether perhaps it was. If you'd prefer to keep it, then keep it, but make sure it's properly attributed (that is a requirement). As I said, it's not something you'll find in the MOS, just my personal preference—that quoting is often done when paraphrasing would make a more fluent reading experience. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC) You wrote you feel it's often undue. These were the most technical and difficult sources I've ever read and the hardest article I've ever worked on. I've just gutted the sections I wrote. I leave it to the art cabal to figure out what to do with it. I haven't got the experience. But when it comes to knowing how to cite sources and how to attribute, I do have experience. I'll be running this by Moonriddengirl when we're done here. In the meantime, I'll leave it. Victoria (tk) 00:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Oh, dear. For the record, I never would have considered opposing over such a thing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Victoria, no sleep should be lost here. Mr Turkey seems to be on our side, and we can figure this out easily. Ceoil (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC) I disagree. I think it's unnecessarily confrontational. FAC shouldn't be an experience where an article, such as this that has an immense of amount of good research and was really difficult to write and frankly is better than a lot of stuff that comes through here, is raked through the coals, just because someone can. Both CT and Johnbod made comments about the unnecessary use of quotations. But then Curly Turkey says it's not worth an oppose. Frankly it's not worth being involved in this process. The point is taken, the quotes removed, and I've removed my name from the nom. There's a reason I don't display stars on my page; they mean nothing except that someone made it through this gauntlet. I've proved time and again that I incapable and I won't try again. Victoria (tk) 02:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Its not like that. I see the quote has been pulled and thats a shame. I remember asking you how if seraph meant he has three pairs of wings, the figure only has two. You expained; the third pair are under his legs. We need to find where that came from. The ref prob got lost in all the pre-FAC shifting about of text, which is fine. Ceoil (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC) It's in the sources and I've read them all! It's taken two months and I had a sandbox filled with notes. I dotted all the i's and crossed the t's - worked portions of the page and know where that material is. If it's to be challenged, then it's to be challenged. Victoria (tk) 02:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Just to clarify: the quote was important because it explains the vision. In every single depiction of the vision, in Giotto, in the mss. illustrations, the seraph-Christ always has three sets of wings and they're always visible. I don't know how to be more clear about this: the quote explains the vision. The painting is about the vision. The six-winged figure appeared to Francis in a vision. The painting is about that. If we can't get it straight, I think the quote is necessary. If we need to know why van Eyck chose to wrap a set of wings around the legs then that would be in Weale or perhaps in Rishel/Snyder. We never explained it and there's precious little description of van Eyck's version of the seraph in the sources. I spent hours and hours looking for it. Victoria (tk) 02:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC) The quote I remove actually says: and two veiled the whole body. But CT and JB think it's not necessary. I do. As someone who's not familiar with why St Francis has stigmata, I think we need to explain and I think we need the quote. I'm a little surprised to see CT bring up the word oppose. Victoria (tk) 03:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Please readd with a cite. The word oppose was meant in a benign manner in the first place, intended as more reassuring than anything. Ceoil (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- Copied from FAC

In this depiction he sees "a man like a seraph having six wings, standing over him with hands outstretched and feet joined together, fixed to a cross. Two wings were raised above his head, two were spread out for flight, and two veiled the whole body": again, we need attribution. Is there some reason this needs to be quoted?

Many Wikipedians set the bar for what "needs to be quoted" too high, imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I quoted it because I'm a pagan and don't always understand Christian symbols, because I like it, and because I was afraid of straying too far to the source. Can be completely rewritten if required. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The only requirement is for attribution. I'm smply one of those with a high bar for "needs to be quoted", as quoting draws attention to the quote itself, which I feel is often WP:UNDUE. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Would like to keep it. It's an important concept imo. Basically the entire point of the painting. How often does a six winged seraph christ appear in front of someone? Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree about undue but won't argue. I'll remove it and have removed all the quotes in the sections I've written. I've left the ones in the sections Ceoil's written. But want to go on record to say that this is an issue that's inconsistent from reviewer to reviewer and when this FAC is over I might seek clarification in terms of whether we should be quoting or not. I believe, strongly, that best practice is to wrap a phrase or sentence in quotations rather than having to revert to close paraphrasing. That could just be my training though. Victoria (tk) 23:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing it was actually undue in this case, only questioning whether perhaps it was. If you'd prefer to keep it, then keep it, but make sure it's properly attributed (that is a requirement). As I said, it's not something you'll find in the MOS, just my personal preference—that quoting is often done when paraphrasing would make a more fluent reading experience. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You wrote you feel it's often undue. These were the most technical and difficult sources I've ever read and the hardest article I've ever worked on. I've just gutted the sections I wrote. I leave it to the art cabal to figure out what to do with it. I haven't got the experience. But when it comes to knowing how to cite sources and how to attribute, I do have experience. I'll be running this by Moonriddengirl when we're done here. In the meantime, I'll leave it. Victoria (tk) 00:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. For the record, I never would have considered opposing over such a thing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, no sleep should be lost here. Mr Turkey seems to be on our side, and we can figure this out easily. Ceoil (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's unnecessarily confrontational. FAC shouldn't be an experience where an article, such as this that has an immense of amount of good research and was really difficult to write and frankly is better than a lot of stuff that comes through here, is raked through the coals, just because someone can. Both CT and Johnbod made comments about the unnecessary use of quotations. But then Curly Turkey says it's not worth an oppose. Frankly it's not worth being involved in this process. The point is taken, the quotes removed, and I've removed my name from the nom. There's a reason I don't display stars on my page; they mean nothing except that someone made it through this gauntlet. I've proved time and again that I incapable and I won't try again. Victoria (tk) 02:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not like that. I see the quote has been pulled and thats a shame. I remember asking you how if seraph meant he has three pairs of wings, the figure only has two. You expained; the third pair are under his legs. We need to find where that came from. The ref prob got lost in all the pre-FAC shifting about of text, which is fine. Ceoil (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It's in the sources and I've read them all! It's taken two months and I had a sandbox filled with notes. I dotted all the i's and crossed the t's - worked portions of the page and know where that material is. If it's to be challenged, then it's to be challenged. Victoria (tk) 02:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the quote was important because it explains the vision. In every single depiction of the vision, in Giotto, in the mss. illustrations, the seraph-Christ always has three sets of wings and they're always visible. I don't know how to be more clear about this: the quote explains the vision. The painting is about the vision. The six-winged figure appeared to Francis in a vision. The painting is about that. If we can't get it straight, I think the quote is necessary. If we need to know why van Eyck chose to wrap a set of wings around the legs then that would be in Weale or perhaps in Rishel/Snyder. We never explained it and there's precious little description of van Eyck's version of the seraph in the sources. I spent hours and hours looking for it. Victoria (tk) 02:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The quote I remove actually says: and two veiled the whole body. But CT and JB think it's not necessary. I do. As someone who's not familiar with why St Francis has stigmata, I think we need to explain and I think we need the quote. I'm a little surprised to see CT bring up the word oppose. Victoria (tk) 03:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please readd with a cite. The word oppose was meant in a benign manner in the first place, intended as more reassuring than anything. Ceoil (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but wasn't Johnbod disagreeing with me? I thought he was in favour of the quote and was expressing his displeasure at me for questioning it. To clarify, the important point I brought up was the need to attribute the quote, and the comment about the necessity of the quote was merely an aside. Please consider that comment stricken—at no point had I meant to imply it was UNDUE, that was me poorly communicating. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I was disagreeing with you Curly, and thanks for pointing this out. Perhaps I wasn't expressing myself clearly enough. I'm sorry to see this issue get blown up, when it wasn't a biggie for either of us. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It blew up because I'm not happy about removing all the quotes and gutting the article. I'd prefer a FAC to move more slowly and to have a chance to juggle RL w/ WP. Yes, I misunderstood - I thought high bar meant too many quotes. Anyway seraph quote put back, the cite was always there, and either I forgot to attribute or it got lost along the way. I was reacting to this, attributed to CT: The only requirement is for attribution. I'm smply one of those with a high bar for "needs to be quoted", as quoting draws attention to the quote itself, which I feel is often WP:UNDUE, which I don't agree with. Particularly when the topic/subject is difficult or technical and often said better by the expert. PS - please excuse terseness. It's not intentional. Victoria (tk) 12:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont see this as an issue, frankly; I have all the sources (but there are a lot). Confindent I can pull this; its an important point the source is making. Curly thank you very much for the review so far. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Categories: