Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caspar David Friedrich

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 User:SandyGeorgia 17:21, 27 November 2008 [1].

Caspar David Friedrich edit

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Outriggr, Modernist, Kafka Liz, Lithoderm.

Gloomy 19th-century German Romantic landscape painter. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Ceoil sláinte 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (from the perspective of knowing nothing about the subject)Fainites barley 18:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead - where you say "as Germany moved towards modernisation" - some idea of date here - eg late nineteenth century or whatever.
  • Where you link 'German romantics' and then 'landscape painter' immediately after, it gives the impression that it was the "german romantic landscape painter" movement. Is it possible to link landscape painter a little later?
Both fixed. Well spotted. Ceoil sláinte 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This On 21 January 1818, Friedrich married Caroline Bommer, then twenty-five years old and the daughter of a dyer from Dresden and a gentle, unassuming woman. suggests her Mother was the gentle, unassuming woman.
  • This, Human figures appear with increasing frequency in the paintings of this period, as Siegel believes as a reflection of the fact that "the importance of human life, particularly his family, now occupies his thoughts more and more, and his friends, his wife, and his townspeople appear as frequent subjects in his art." is a rather over complicated sentence. Something not quite right about the "as Seigal believes" bit.
  • There's a "Vaughan" at ref 61 which hasn't got a date.
Got both. I cut the "a gentle, unassuming" bit; not sure its relevant. Ceoil sláinte 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a compliment in those days. Probably reads as downtrodden now.
  • You mention the The Wreck of Hope—also known as The Polar Sea or Sea of Ice (1842)— in the text. The caption says The Sea of Ice, (The Wreck of the Hoffnung) but the information for the image says The Sea of Ice aka Polar Sea (mistakenly confused with The Wreck of Hope, The Wreck of the North Pole Expedition. At least one of these must be right but not all of them.
I took out The Wreck of the Hoffnung mention. Better? Ceoil sláinte 19:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confuse matters further, the owning museum calls it "Das Eismeer, um 1823/24 /The Arctic Sea" [2]. I thought "the Wreck of Hope" was a comment on it ot its meaning by Friedrich. Titles, let alone their translations, often shift, so several could be "right" Johnbod (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean the description at jpg is wrong then? Or is this an ongoing controversy?
lol, the title seems to change from decade to decade...seems OK now....Modernist (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about moving the self-portrait to the other side to get that "left/right" look?
Yeah, but its on the right because he is looking to the left. Otherwise he would be facing out of the page. Ceoil sláinte 03:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Unlike that one at the top where the eyes follow you all round the room (and out the door). Fainites barley 13:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ackcherlee I tried it on the left (without saving) and he still looks right at you. Fainites barley 20:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Freaky. Anyway, thanks for the cmts and support. Anything else you spot, let us know. Ceoil sláinte 20:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looking good. Fainites barley 00:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images - Before I start checking all of the images, I think something has to be done about their arrangement. There are too many and the text is being sandwiched (see WP:MOS#Images) Yes, artists deserve more images, but in this case I would support a gallery instead. Please, do something! :) Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> With heavy heart I cut two. As an interesting aside I have a source that says that [3] was a direct influence on Mary Shelley. Its a claim I find easy to believe. Ceoil sláinte 20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does your source say if it influenced a specific work? Awadewit (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly no, he was broadly talking about the revival of the (reinterpreted) Gothic aesthetic. But the imagery is strikingly similar to Shelley; tiny people overshadowed by monumental objects. I can email you a copy if you are interested (its a JSTOR article). Ceoil sláinte 20:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am, yes, and would appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Caspardavidfriedrich self1.jpg - I'm a little unclear on the source for this image - did the uploader scan it at the museum?
  • Image:René Magritte The Human Condition.jpg - You need to list the reason you believe this image is in the PD.
    • I see Commons has no Magritte images, and I presume they know better than we do about his PD status, so this image should probably be removed or a fair-use rationale given. –Outriggr § 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've provided a basic one, and reduced the size of the image considerably. It would be nice if the article clarified exactly how the painting echoes motifs from Friedrich's work. Lithoderm (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am utterly unconvinced by this fair use rationale, I'm afraid. Why must we have this painting? Is there no free image of any of other work he influenced? What motifs are specifically in the work? Do we have to see them to understand them? We may want to have this image, but do we have to? (I really sympathize with wanting to include more art, being a former art history major, but I would rather Wikipedia not be sued!) Awadewit (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Magritte has been removed. Ceoil sláinte 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully these will be easy to clear up. Awadewit (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing on the talk page various possibilities for illustating the "influence" section. Thanks for looking at the images. Ceoil sláinte 23:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see new images have been added to the article, as well as a gallery. When the image choices are stabilized, let me know, and I'll do the image check again. Awadewit (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the best a hold. It hasn't been decided as the discussion on what to include threw up a larger discussion, and even List of works by Caspar David Friedrich. I'm not sure where the gallery stands wgt FAC, but I think it is now redundant given User:Remember's list. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no deal-breakers left for mine. Comments ahaaa let's flog Ceoil's FAC mercilessly no, seriously, looks good. If I tweak anything and it changes meaning inadvertently, feel free to revert me. Some comments as I go: Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caspar David was familiar with death from an early age, losing his mother, two sisters and a brother before he reached eighteen. - a little repetitive given the deaths are then repeated in the next few sentences. Might be good to try and meld with the following few. Not a deal breaker and I may have a look later.
Clarified now. Ceoil sláinte 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greifswald, Swedish Pomerania - can we say what/wewhre it is now? eg NE Germany or whatever. I am hopeless at history, I hate commas in place areas and like a nice folksy town x in region y etc.
Clarified now. Ceoil sláinte 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the subtle atmospheric effects characteristic of Friedrich's maturity were rendered from memory. - not sure what 'maturity' means here. not literal? painting style in mature period?Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded as mid-period. Ceoil sláinte 04:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<nitpick> Friedrich's recognition as an artist began... - ack. Given we're aiming for brilliant prose, would maybe rewording using "profile", "status" or "reputation", say, "became established", "grew" or some combination thereof as as is it sounds a wee bit clunky </nitpick> Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, somebody got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. I have reworded for you pleasure ;). Thanks....Ceoil sláinte 04:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Twas that poxy feckin' song...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happier song dropped on this cranky editor's talk. Ceoil sláinte 05:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happier now :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of his paintings were lost in the fire that destroyed Munich's Glass Palace (1931) and in the 1945 bombing of Dresden. - I am intrigued often at how much is lost during events such as these, is there any info on how many paintings and/or what was lost which could be added here? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that connection with Nazism metioned in lead but not discussed in article. Is there anything to expand on that to put in legacy section? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll flesh that out later tonight. Thanks for the ce. Ceoil sláinte 05:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, once done I think ye'r over the line in my book :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil sláinte 01:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a supporting reference:[4] concerning the Monk by the Sea specifically. Lithoderm (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the dab; would be great if Brighterorange gets a chance to look over. Ceoil sláinte 03:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE NO INFOBOX AND HERE ARE FOUR SENTENCES THAT AREN'T CITED. [joke] Seriously, thank you Ceoil, and everyone else who has been involved in this article, for taking it all the way. –Outriggr § 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job all - it's looking great...Modernist (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article looks brilliant from here. Kablammo (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Ceoil sláinte 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of minor suggestions:
Lead - “Typically” appears twice in first paragraph—perhaps use “often” for the second occurrence?
Early years — I assume from the context that “his brother” in the last sentence is Caspar; perhaps that should be made explicit.
Last paragraph, last sentence: “that had never been painted before” to ”not known to have been painted before”?
It's good now...Modernist (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer this as it is and have left it alone, but others are certainly welcome to change it if they like. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the phrase...that had never been painted in such a n intense and intended manner before...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to nit-pick, but the sentence feels a bit vague without some sort of modifying adjective. I don't have Johnston on hand; can we be more specific about what she means? Kafka Liz (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..."with such an emphasis," i.e. on the depiction of light? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..I can live with your changes Liz..Modernist (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Dresden - First para, 2d sentence: “long forgotten” to “long-forgotten”?
Later life and death - Russian Royal Family”: “royal” vice “Royal”?
These are suggestions only; feel free to ignore, or strike yourself when addressed. Kablammo (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support - This was a fascinating article to read, which covers the majors aspects of Friedrich - his life and his art. I did, however, feel that a few sections, particularly towards the end, could have been organized a bit better.

  • The last paragraph of the "Landscape" section is about sculpture and other non-landscapey things. Can we move this information somewhere more relevant?
Para moved to the bio section. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Influence" seems ill-placed, as it is about Friedrich's character. Could this information be placed somewhere more appropriate?
Moved to "Later life and death". Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Influence" section feels a bit listy right now. I'm not sure I have much of a sense of what precisely Friedrich's influence was - "landscape" is a bit vague.

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ce Awadewit; there is discussion on the talk as how to arrange the final sections; for the moment we are stepping back to think it over; likely it will be redrafted and strenghtened over the weekend. Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just drop a note on my talk page when you want me to reread the article and rereview the images. Awadewit (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do and thanks. There are a few outstanding issues yet, So a day or too. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status? Images not cleared up yet ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All save Image:Shishkin na severe dikom1.jpg are tagged P-D. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support as soon as the image issues below are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully supporting now. Awadewit (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments Lovely article - not a subject I'm particularly familiar with, but I keep bumping into him here and there. I've made a few comments on the talk page, which I'd be grateful for a response to. As a general reader, I arrived at the article interested in his influence by the ideas of the Sublime - it's perhaps a little light on that. Is there anything explicit linking him to influence from Schopenhauer, Kant, Burke etc? Seems his work was an exploration of their ideas. My other comment is simply why isn't Wanderer above the Sea of Fog not the second lead image - apart from the sea of ice its the one I recognise the most - with that image in the lead I'd get "Ah! that German romantic painter" rather than having to wait till I get to the gallery at the bottom. But these are niggles - fantastic work Ceoil. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joopers. To be honest what happened with the 2nd lead image is I tried to slip in one of my own personal favourites on the sly (with a minor edit summary, in an edit where I also pointlessly moved paras around, to confuse and muddy the waters, he he). But <sigh> I'm now being hammered about it on the talk, so yes we, or 'they', will change it. "Wanderer above the Sea of Fog" is a excellent suggestion though, and I'd say will likely the end result, as you can see its being hashed out on the talk page today. Thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the "Sublime" could be a section of its own; I'm checking through my sources to see what I have to hand on it. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (part the second)

Just a few small details. Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done (I think). Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too much content. Too well-written. Obviously not FA material. An unhealthy lack of compliance with the blue flowerbox format in the reference section... there's this new thing called IMDB.com; you might try searching it. Also... what the heck? ... no "Friedrich in popular culture" section? What were you thinking? C'mon lads. Get with the program. Double dog Oppose. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:26, 27 November 2008 (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/Caspar_David_Friedrich&oldid=1192289075"