Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Battle of Alexander at Issus/archive2

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 Karanacs 22:23, 20 January 2010 [1].

The Battle of Alexander at Issus[edit]

Nominator(s): —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because all concerns from the last FAC (with one explained exception) have been addressed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: 1c: use of Britannica, an unsigned tertiary source by non experts. Your explanation is singularly unconvincing as to why we should throw sourcing rules for the Biography of a major historical figure out the window simply because this is a fine arts article. Alexander_III_of_Macedon includes a number of biographical secondary sources you might want to consult.04:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem has been fixed, though I maintain my stance that Britannica is fine. Please rescind your opposition. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In Analysis and interpretation, there is a very long quotation of Kathleen Davis; consider blocking it and other big quotes. No dabs, dead externals, or missing alts. --an odd name 13:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put that into a blockquote would conflict with the image on the left. I find that blockquotes break the flow and generally try to avoid them (the article's one blockquote is a translation and not an excerpt from a text). Unless it's a requirement, I'd prefer to leave things as they are. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't regard my comments last time as resolved; the only sustained and comprehensive analysis of the painting used is Hagen, with Wood's shorter analysis, in a book all on Altdorfer, also used. We have other FAs on paintings included in the Hagens' books, which are good popular works with articles in similar format on "greatest hits" of painting. Las Meninas does not use the Hagens at all, & they are I think used for 1/65 notes in Rokeby Venus, because these articles had better and fuller references available. This doesn't seem to the case in English for the Battle of Alexander, that anyone has been able to discover. It may just be that an FA standard of comprehensiveness cannot be reached without use of the abundant German literature. Two books that are widely available & have some analysis of the painting that does not really add anything to what is here (which is why I did not mention them before), but might increase the class of referencing used are:

Snyder, James; Northern Renaissance Art, 1985, Harry N. Abrams, ISBN 0136235964
Clark, Sir Kenneth, Landscape into Art, 1949 (& many later edns)

- both very standard books. There is too much reliance on non-specialist references here - the last two in the article, both on art-historical points, come from: "Davis, Kathleen (2008). Periodization and sovereignty: how ideas of feudalism and secularization govern the politics of time. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812240839", which doesn't sound like an art-history book to me. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll look into both. Meanwhile, I have a text from Larry Silver (Art Bulletin) which can replace many of the lesser references to which you refer. Aside from the issue you have with the referencing, do you see any areas where you think comprehensiveness is lacking? You say "It may just be that an FA standard of comprehensiveness cannot be reached without use of the abundant German literature." but fail to point out what exactly you think is missing. This is a 43 KB article. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've introduced some references from Clark. I think he has something quite valuable to add to the Reception section; I'll get to that later today. I'll try to get to a physical library for Snyder. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Silver is promising. We don't have anything on the reception until Napoleon, nor from German 19th century artists, many of whom were very influenced by Altdorfer & the Danube School. There are no technical details, that might or might not be significant - condition, restoration, indications of changes in intentions etc - perhaps if there was anything really important it would be in the Munich summary catalogue. But I think some of the things the article does deal with would probably emerge rather differently with access to works that deal at length with this painting specifically. Part of the trouble is that because the work is very untypical of Altdorfer in many ways, but characteristic of him in others, it is much tricker to use general statements about his art here than it would be in dealing with a more typical work - a difficulty in using most of Wood. Obviously without having that material I can't say what might be different, but that has always been my experience. Excluding the sections on the historical battle & earlier depictions of it, the article is not so long. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a paragraph from Clark to the Legacy. It gives a good indication of Altdorfer's influence on later movements. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the word 'stopper' used deliberately? if so we might want to use a hidden comment in the source wikitext as people may change it. Is there too much historical background e.g. on Alexander, which isn't necessary to understand the painting? The quotation that includes the word proleptically, does sound pretentious even if it has some truth. From a non-expert who had not heard of this painting before, the description of it reads pretty clearly, good work so far Tom B (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stopper is used deliberately. I'm not sure it's needed, but I'll add an invisible note since you've asked. Knowing the history isn't necessary, but it gives the reader a good idea about the heroic status of Alexander, who he was, why he matters, and why he was painted. The history also gives the readers a base with which to compare Altdorfer's depiction of the scene. I don't think how pretentious a quote sounds matters; it's the content and meaning that is important. Thanks for your comments. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support on 2c; ref formatting, should be easy to fix:

  • Under Notes, some references use one digit in the second page number (37-8) while others use two (37-38); please use two consistently
    All fixed, I think. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some notes have multiple authors unalphabetized (such as 1, 6, 12, etc).
  • In the first reference: Is "Munich" the author's first name, is the date in the right place, and should there be a comma after the publisher?
    Fixed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the fourth reference (Bryant 1996), unlink the publisher, or else link throughout; goes for other linked publishers
  • Corsiver; Childs 1994 should be alphabetized
  • Hagan; Hagan 2003 should be alphabetical by first name
  • Same as above for Janson; Janson 2003
  • Alphabetize Sacks; Murray; Bunson 1997
  • Alphabetize Art: a brief history (2003) Mm40 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will get on to it. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Hagens should be the way their book lists them, which is not alphabetically. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the references which are not alphabetized are arranged by primary author, which is usual, I think. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake. Striking oppose. Mm40 (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: most images are from the Yorck Project, which Commons have accepted as public domain. The rest are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

  • "Renowned for what Joseph M. Bryant ..."
    Who is Bryant? What makes him an authority on Alexander? This also applies to Mark W. Roskil, Kathleen Davis, Rose-Marie Hagen, Kenneth Clark, and Pia F. Cuneo with respect to their comments on this painting. A qualifier (profession or title) preceding their first mention would help.
    Kenneth Clark is one of the most famous art historians of the last century, Hagen a well-known popular one. I for one oppose and dislike explaining every name who crops up, if they are the expected type of expert for the subject - we ought instead to weed out any who are not art historians/historians - not that I'm saying there are any such here - or just reduce the naming in the text. This article suffers slightly from "over-attributing" very standard views or facts to individuals as though they were some original personal insight. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Remedied, I think (to both Jappaland and Johnbod). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with Johnbod that perhaps non-"true blue" art historians/historians should be excluded, sometimes certain reknowned figures might give interesting and extraordinary insight (imagine if sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke gives critical comment on a painting of a science fiction scene). That said, I still believe that clarifying the subject's field of expertise does good, especially for the general readers (to get a feel of why this commentator's opinion is to be regarded). Not doing so, in my view, seems to be creating a walled garden atmosphere for the article (either you know who the art experts are, or you do not). Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If people of not the "expected" profession, such as authors, are quoted, then yes they should be linked or given a descriptor (like Schlegel here). But if the subject is history, or biology, and people are quoted without a descriptor, the reader should be able to assume they are a historian or biologist, whether "true-blue" or not, without having to be told each time. And really people should only be mentioned, as opposed to cited, where their thoughts are at least partly original, or especially well-expressed - of course knowing where this is the case can require a good knowledge of the literature. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Darius and his army routed."
    I thought "rout" is a transitive verb? In this case, either "Alex routed the Persians", or "the Persians were routed", right?
    You're correct. Fixed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cause of death remains a subject of debate."
    Source?
    Given. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While an exciting read, is the Historical setting section not a bit too long? It is about the same length as the linked main article.
    • I'm just not sure where to thin it out. I'm sure that some reviewers will object that something so long isn't required, but I think it helps to establish who Alexander was and gives the reader an historically accurate narrative with which to compare Altdorfer's depiction. If you examine the topic of every paragraph, I think you'll find that the account is actually quite concise and without extraneous detail. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This view is indirectly affirmed by the notable omission of the date of the battle in the hanging tablet's description."
    The connection between an omission of the date (and the omission as notable) and Davis's opinion seems to need a source.
    Removed. I couldn't find the source. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, a very good read (in terms of prose). Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all your concerns have been addressed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I enjoyed reading the article and learning quite a bit about this painting. Supporting. Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written article on a significant topic. I have no major concerns. ceranthor 14:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Very nicely written throughout. No complaints from me either (don't say that often around here). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article reads well and is nicely written, a concern that I have is who is this person - Helen of Egypt? any more information about her - better name, dates, other works, when did she paint, or a reference would help...Modernist (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment - She was actually called Helena of Egypt described as the daughter of Timon of Egypt, she painted the Battle of Issus. I added 2 refs...Modernist (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2010 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Battle_of_Alexander_at_Issus/archive2&oldid=1091467274"