Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/After the Deluge (painting)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 22:26, 30 November 2016 [1].

After the Deluge (painting)

[edit]
Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 10:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bright rising sun illuminating the clouds over a featureless horizon" has become such a staple image since the advent of modern photography, it's easy to forget that it had to begin somewhere. Likewise, if George Frederic Watts is remembered at all nowadays it's as the painter of formal portraits of dignitaries and of earnestly portentious paintings with titles like Love and Death and The Slumber of the Ages, not as the painter of dramatic landscapes. After the Deluge is an explicitly religious painting, yet contains no religious imagery of any kind, and is an interesting snapshot of the transition between 19th-century symbolism and 20th-century abstraction. Because this has spent the last century in the backwater of Compton rather than in a high-profile institution like the Tate Gallery or the Yale Center for British Art, there hasn't been all that much written about this particular piece so the article is shorter than usual, but I believe this collates together everything significant that there is to say about it. And yes, I know it looks like I've accidentally cut-and-pasted a chunk of body text into the wikilink but Light and Colour (Goethe's Theory)—The Morning after the Deluge—Moses Writing the Book of Genesis genuinely is the name of Turner's painting of the same subject. ‑ Iridescent 10:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

[edit]
  • I put it in its current location (about its 1891 exhibition) because Watts didn't include it with either the 1886 exhibition or with its later permanent exhibition in Compton; plus, the "Subject" and "Composition" sections each already include a quotation and I was trying to avoid the appearance of a quotefarm as much as possible. I've no particular attachment to keeping it in any given place, although I feel it makes more sense in the section on exhibition, as it illustrates that Watts was anticipating that his audience wouldn't necessarily get the point if he didn't explain it. ‑ Iridescent 11:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

I've got a flight in the morning so forgive me if this is a bit piecemeal:

  • Why is "flood" lower case when appended to "Noah's" but capped otherwise?
  • "he explicitly aimed at evoking" this seems too wordy. What's wrong with "he intended to evoke"
  • I've amended it in the lead, but I think the "explicitly" ought to remain in the body. Basically, Watts (along with virtually everyone else at this time) was part of the fad for painting classical subjects and often dabbled with Greek and Roman gods (and with more abstract Christian concepts like the personifications of Faith, Hope and Charity), but with this particular painting he wanted viewers to get the impression of a single all-powerful God showing off what he could do, even though a viewer could equally reasonably interpret it as a trial of strength between a sun-god and a water-god. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Watts worked on the painting for a further five years, and the completed version was eventually exhibited at the New Gallery in 1891." "eventually" seems surplasage.
  • I've reworded it to "the completed version was exhibited for the first time [in 1891]"; I agree that "eventually" isn't appropriate, but I want to communicate that after its first exhibition he withdrew it and didn't show it again until it had reached its final state. (I'm assuming a lot of the traffic to this will be coming from the much better known Hope, where Watts painted multiple versions and sold off or gave away the preliminary versions, so some readers will reasonably assume that was his usual way of working.) ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "around the country" I'd let this pass if there had been any geographical hint in text beyond that of Whitechapel, so I'd be more specific.
  • Amended to "around the United Kingdom" in the lead—in the body text "Cork, Edinburgh, Manchester, Dublin and London" is spelled out so I think the "around the country" can stay. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fellow artists, and has been cited as an influence on numerous other artists" artists/artists
  • "His portraits were extremely highly regarded,[8] and in 1867 he was elected a Royal Academician, at the time the highest honour available to an artist,[6][A] although he rapidly became disillusioned with the culture of the Royal Academy." This seems needlessly complex. Why not say he was elected to the Royal Academy? Then you can say he became disillusioned with "its culture"?
  • "Although his father's strict evangelical Christianity had instilled in Watts a strong dislike of organised religion since his childhood," I would strike the last three words If it comes from the father, it's most likely a childhood influence.
  • "showed Noah sacrificing to the sun in thanks for his family's salvation from the floodwaters" I would strike the last three words. Even if perchance someone is unfamiliar with the story of Noah coming in, by this time they have the general idea.
  • I was thinking that there was potential for readers misunderstanding "salvation" as being the point at which Noah decided he was going to follow God's will, rather than the moment at which God physically rescued him, given the common use of the term in both Judaism and Christianity as a synonym for "redemption". I agree that it's not really necessary, since anyone reading this is presumably going to know that the Sacrifice of Noah refers to the specific event after the flood was over. ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "Mr. Watts" and "St. Jude", are the periods as intended? I understand the British practice is often to omit them. Regarding Mr. Watts, I note that the first usage of this in the article is rendered without the dot on the Tate website, here.
  • The MOS says to always use the period in US and Canadian English, and that either form is acceptable in British English. Since this is unquestionably a BrEng topic, I've removed the periods, which shaves off a few extra characters. ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for his exhibitions.[23][E] Following this exhibition" I would be less of an exhibitionist.
  • "in the two decades following its exhibition" that is, following 1886 or 1891?
  • The 1891 exhibition—prior to that, nobody really knew it existed. I've changed "exhibition" to "completion". (It will technically be the 23 years following its completion—the outbreak of WW1 functioned as a huge reset button for Western art and culture—but this article's so short that I don't want to get into a long aside about the emergence of surrealism.) ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I expect to support once these are addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

Not my area of expertise, but all the more reason for me to appreciate such a clear piece of writing. A couple of comments that you may want to consider

  • …at the age of 10, and at the age of 16… At the age of 18…— perhaps something like …at the age of 10, and at 16… Aged 18… to break the repetition.
  • Yeah, that's my trying to make the text slightly different to the biography on Hope (which was painted a couple of years earlier so by definition is almost identical). I've amended "at 16" to "by his mid-teens", which is accurate enough and breaks the repetition—presumably anyone who really cares about the exact timings is going to be reading his own article. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • depression probably needs a link
  • I'm a little reluctant, as that's to the modern concept of depression which didn't exist at this time. The wording of the source is actually "moodiness and melancholia", which was the language of the day. I've amended it to "melancholia" (and linked it), even though I'm a little reluctant to say in Wikipedia's voice that he suffered an illness which is no longer generally recognised. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royal Academician, at the time the highest honour available to an artist,[6][A] although he rapidly became disillusioned with the culture of the Royal Academy— perhaps make the second occurrence just "the Academy" to reduce repetition?
  • I can't, really; there were lots of Academies at this time, but only one Royal Academy. (Usually the way we avoid repetition is to use "RA" in subsequent appearances, but this is the first appearance of both "Royal Academician" and "Royal Academy".) ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 1902 and 1906 it was— we are some lines away from the subject of this sentence, replace the pronoun with "the painting" or similar
  • I'm deeply shocked that you've missed the opportunity to use the word "antediluvian" (:
  • It would be a bit hypocritical of me, given that only a few days ago I was chiding the horsey folks for using "covered" rather than "mated" and expecting readers to understand it. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—think I've fixed all of them ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I must admit the point about depression hadn't occurred to me, thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sagaciousphil

[edit]
  • Note [B] - probably showing my ignorance here but ... what is the "190" at the end?
  • After completion, 2nd paragraph: " ... shortly before Watts's death later that year. Shortly before his death ..." Could this be re-worded slightly to remove repetition in such close proximity?

Very, very minor so I'm happy to support. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Damn, forgot to comment - read this the other day on my phone (where it is hard to comment). support as I can't find any prose glitches or omissions to complain about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ‑ Iridescent 14:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

image and source review

[edit]

Unsurprisingly, all images are in public domain due to age. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References formatted consistently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One ref online and checks out. snippets of other material seen check out. Good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/After_the_Deluge_(painting)/archive1&oldid=752557072"