Template:Did you know nominations/The Raising of Lazarus (Sebastiano del Piombo)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Raising of Lazarus (Sebastiano del Piombo) edit

(

)

Raising of Lazarus, detail

~~... that Michelangelo had Sebastiano del Piombo paint his Raising of Lazarus (detail pictured) to outdo his rival Raphael, but it failed in this?~~

Source: Lucco; "According to Vasari, Sebastiano’s Lazarus was intended to compete with Raphael’s painting and was executed with the help of Michelangelo; their collaboration, once secret, was now openly encouraged by Giulio de’ Medici with the express aim of exploiting the rivalry between Michelangelo and Raphael." The other sources are fuller, and there's another brief account here.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Papal conclave, 1724

5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 03:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC).

The article gets the nod on expansion, time line and references, in fact it has potential to evolve into a good article. Earwig check similarities limited to names. I would suggest a tweak to the hook to omit the last part, it failed in this, as it could be borderline WP:OR.

~~... that Michelangelo helped Sebastiano del Piombo to paint Raising of Lazarus to outdo his rival Raphael?~~

~~@Johnbod: to confirm. QPQ to be done. jojo@nthony (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)~~

It#s nowhere near OR, having been the view of every critic since Vasari - see [1] Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I was basing my comment on the checkable source you provided another brief account where it is stated his glory was clouded by Raphael’s death only days before the public display, and Michelangelo’s return to Florence deprived him of the immediate help he had come to enjoy. Based on the above, to state that Michelangelo failed in his attempt to belittle Raphael would be an inference. Please pardon my ignorance, could you point out where in the present source ([2]) the statement (it failed in this) is explicitly supported? jojo@nthony (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Vasari says: "These altarpieces, when finished, were publicly exhibited together in the Consistory, and were vastly extolled, both the one and the other; and although the works of Raffaello had no equals in their perfect grace and beauty, nevertheless the labours of Sebastiano were also praised by all without exception." As I said at the start, there are other sources not online, where you need to assume good faith, and not equate OR with something I didn't know. That the Raphael was kept in Rome, and the Sebastiano sent to France also shows which was the more highly rated. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod: It is not the case of something I didn't know, it is the case of something I didn't get to see. Since you would like to include it failed in this and I am unable to find a verifiable source to support it, I would rather withdraw from this review and leave it to a more discerning editor to look into. As such, I have removed the question mark. Sorry I could not complete it. jojo@nthony (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia btw: "It was perfectly evident that Luciani [Sebastiano] owed a great deal to the influence and the assistance of Michelangelo, but the colouring was so magnificent, and the effect so superb, that it created great excitement in Rome; notwithstanding that the "Transfiguration" by Raphael was regarded as the greater picture, Luciani's work was universally admired." Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Full review needed by new reviewer; previous reviewer has withdrawn. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod: This nomination seems to have stalled. I tend to agree with Tachs, but would probably be able to approve the nomination if the hook were rephrased to indicate that "in this he did not succeed" or something similar. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have produced various references, one pretty clear one since he walked off. Others rely on AGF, as I said at the start, but the fact is undoubted. I can't actually see any substantive difference in the wording you suggest. Surely "did not succeed" = "failed", but expressed in a wordier and roundabout way? Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this, and perhaps you are right. The image is in the public domain and other parts of the review as per Tachs. Approving ALT0. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but I'm also confused by the last few words. What do you think about spelling it out?
ALT1: ~~... that Michelangelo had Sebastiano del Piombo paint his Raising of Lazarus (detail pictured) to outdo his rival Raphael, but Raphael's painting was judged superior?~~ Yoninah (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, ok, though it's longer, but gets another link in. It may drive more traffic to the Raphael than the poor Sebastiano.... Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Thanks. Would you mind reducing the overlinking in the hook as follows:
ALT1a: ~~... that Michelangelo had Sebastiano del Piombo paint his Raising of Lazarus (detail pictured) to outdo his rival Raphael, but Raphael's painting was judged superior?~~
If you're concerned about driving away traffic, we could write:
ALT1b: ... that Michelangelo had Sebastiano del Piombo paint his Raising of Lazarus (detail pictured) to outdo his rival Raphael, but Raphael's painting was judged superior? Yoninah (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Replacing tick, with ALT1b being the preferred hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)