Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tomb of Antipope John XXIII

< 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 16:13, 20 March 2008.

Tomb of Antipope John XXIII edit

Self-Nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is (in my opinion) a very thorough and well-researched article about a relatively obscure work of art. It's been relatively stable since it became a good article months ago (recent edits are me tweaking the intro and remedying the remaining redlinks). All images are free. Savidan 01:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really it could do with more pics of the tomb itself. Otherwise, it looks good on an initial scan, but the English and the links need a fair bit of work, and I could not always follow the meaning. Some context for the artists as well as the subject should be added - a paragraph would do it. I have de-sized the pics per MoS. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish I had more pictures of the tomb itself. What I got was from the commons and does not lend itself to cropping. There is a section about the subject (the first subsection in the background section) and a section about the artists ("Attribution"). Please let me know if there is any specific information about the subject or the artists that you feel is lacking. Could you also be more specific about "the English and the links"? Thanks for your comments. Savidan 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The background of the artists is not covered - a little should be said about their careers up to the point they did this, and its place in the development of their art - also who did what, if this is known? It is quicker to do the English & links than describe the problems, though many unlinked words (that need them) should be apparent on a read-through. I will add bits I don't follow later. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into adding a bit about the standings of the artists prior to their work on the tomb. "Who did what"...well, its a matter of dispute. The article contains a variety of viewpoints on this question. I look forward to your edits/comments on the English and links. Thanks for a speedy response. Savidan 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added what Lightbown says about the two of them at the time of their partnership. Savidan 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Sources all have publishers, all footnotes have page numbers. The only (very minor) quibble that I could see is someone might want you to spell out translator instead of the abbreviation. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Service! Ealdgyth | Talk 02:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find the style of the prose over the top in parts, and the flow is spoilt.[1]--GrahamColmTalk 18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have accepted your edits. Could you be more specific if you have any remaining objections to the prose, being as Johnbod has copyedited it as well since your comment? Savidan 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have copyedited the prose, added & moved the pics; please check that the sense is correct. Some other points:
  • "Tomb-monument" is not really an English term. It could be "tomb monument", but I think "monumental tomb" is better at first appearance, and thereafter just tomb, or, for a change monument.
  • I've changed it to "tomb monument" in most instances as that appears to be the most commonly accepted form of the term on google scholar. "Monumental tomb" is far less common. It can be just "tomb" when only the burial function of the structure is being referred to and just "monument" visa-versa. However, when referring to the structure as a whole with both its burial and artistic functions "tomb monument" is probably most approrpriate. Savidan 04:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is not quite there - a bit more on Coscia's status at death and relationship with Florence is needed, and the suggestions of historians in the 2nd para don't seem to be endorsed by the main article - maybe they should be moved down? A quick summary of the design is needed.
  • I have augmented and tweaked the lead with these comments in mind. I hope it is now acceptable. Savidan 11:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment below.--GrahamColmTalk 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coscia was imprisoned for three years in Germany" - a bit vague; where & by who, if known.
  • In a castle in Randolfzell by some agent of the Holy Roman Emperor, but I don't see it as relevant to the tomb. What is relevant is that he was ransomed by Florence. Savidan 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "....Martin V (still in Florence)..." - we didn't know he was. Better say somewhere when he arrived and how long he stayed.
  • Well, you should have. ;) The previous paragraph says when he arrived in Florence on his way from the Council of Constance to Rome. It's a bit unclear when he left, but I added the date of his arrival in Rome. Savidan 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be better to just make the "background" section just about Coscia, & move the Baptistry section into the commissioning one. Myself, I don't think the "main article" hat note is needed.
  • I see those two sentences as solely background and am skeptical that they can be moved to the commissioning section without interrupting the narrative. I put the main article link just because a lot of readers may not be familiar with the full history of the baptistry and the other works of art contained within it. They aren't directly relevant enough to this article to justify including them (for example, I probably couldn't find a source mentioning them in relation to each other), but that article is valuable context if you want to read this article and get the most out of it. If you still disagree, and want to try to incorporate these in another section, I'm open to seeing what you have in mind. Savidan 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll have a go. It has 2 or 3 links (with the pic captions). There is an article (or section maybe) on the Ghiberti doors which ought to be linkable too. DoneJohnbod (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't we know if "the 1424 date in the Florentine calendar falls in 1425 in the modern calendar" or not?
  • No, because it is just a year and not a full date. Savidan 01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vasari - was it his life of Donatello where he made the claim? - should be refed anyway.
  • " four white marble tabulas" - use blocks, tablets or sheets I think.
  • I accept your terms. Done. Savidan 01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del Migliore - who he?
  • Just some piss-ant contemporary art historian. To my knowledge its not standard to give biographical details of such individuals mentioned only in passing. 20 years form now he may have his own article on Wikipedia, maybe not. Savidan 01:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should say "art historian Fred Del Miglio" since this is his only mention. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the "screen" back wall of 48.4 cm in width" - in depth might be clearer? or "protruding from the back wall" or something.
  • Fair enough. I'll add "protruding." Savidan 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • links needing disaming: console, tripartite, added Fred of Austria - and I expect quite a few others. You need to follow all the links to scweck where they go - eg spiratelli is redundant, as it just goes to putti, which you linked 2 words before.
  • I've rememdied the examples you give. I'll fix whatever else I find. Be sure to let me know if you find something thats still unclear to you. Savidan 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boniface 8 - was the statue of him?
  • I'm afraid whats stated in the article is the limit of what the source mentions. It just says it was commissioned by him; not that it was of him. This was just an example McHam drew upon to tie gilding to the papacy; the work of art in question may not even be notable enough to merit mention anywhere else (as is unfortunately common in art history).

Savidan 02:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll review your comments and try to fix these. Thanks for your time! Savidan 01:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is much improved.--GrahamColmTalk 11:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC) and I'm considering Support it would be worthwhile to address Johnbod's points above. I have tweaked some of the photographs because my myopia was a problem. I am watching this space with much interest.--GrahamColmTalk 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side point The account of the end of Coscia's reign at his own article is rather different, & much shorter. The passage here could be added there. A bit of text should be added to Michelozzo too. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for Coscia, I've wrote that section with the intention of highlighting the portions of his biography which were relevant to Florence. The article about him proper is not terribly well cited (and thus somewhat suspect), but I will attempt to verify any details there that look relevant to this article. My plan for Michelozzo and Donatello is to get the Lightbown book back and see what it said about them when they first partnered together; at least that way it won't seem like cherry-picking on my part. Savidan 01:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just cutting and pasting the bit here to there (J23) would be an improvement, assuming your version is correct, which I don't doubt. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make sure that whatever we are taking from that article (god knows who wrote it) is accurate. What bit in particular were you interested in? Savidan 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting you add to it, not take from it. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant to add any biographical detail of John XXIII which does not have at least secondary relevant to the tomb itself. This article is not meant to give his entire biography. Unless those details tell us more about his relationship to Florence, I think that they are better off a click away from the article. If you can be more specific about which facts you want (and why they are relevant to the article) I will undertake the necessary research to find a source for them. Savidan 11:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, add to the biography, from this, the tomb article. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot, the whole tomb inscription should be quoted and translated, as it isn't long. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's reasonable, I'll be sure to grab it when I get the Lightbown book back. Savidan 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although he expected his departure would disperse the council, the members of which he called to join him under the protection of Frederick of Austria, " - yes this is unclear; what happened? Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, he was under the protection of Frederick, the council was not. He hoped that they would decide that they couldn't keep being a council without his presence, and thus that they would disperse, and that some or all of them would come to where he was and start a new council. Savidan 01:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This needs clarifying. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • more points:
  • depository-general needs explanation; it seems this was a job normally held by a person. Since the name suggests otherwise, you need to explain it, leave it in Italian with an English phrase of expanation, or convey the point without using it.
  • Probably one day I'll write an article about this, but I am unsure what details would be approriate for this article. It's already clear that Coscia had a business relationship with the Medicis which is really the extent of its relevance to this article. I don't know that there is an italian that would be more appropriate here; it was in english in the source cited. What makes you think that Italian translation is needed here? Savidan 07:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • plenty more duff links - pylon, legate. You have to go through checking them all yourself.
  • I think we're good on the links now. Some of these I could swear have changed since I originally wrote the article... Savidan 07:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we are nearly there I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recapitulation
  • still o/s (not complete):
  • Del Miglio - just drop him?
  • I think it adds something to say that there are two contemporary (ish) art historians who say this instead of just Vasari, even if we only have an article about Vasari. Earlier you suggesting adding his first name; I am not opposed to this although I do not consider it strictly necessary. If you're interested the source that Lightbown is working from is Firenze città nobilissima (1684) but he does not give a page # in this instance. Savidan 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've making very heavy weather of this! Do you see why it can't just be left? It implies Del Miglio is some sort of minor Vasari type. Is Del Miglio just saying he believes Vasari? In an FA you can't just drop in an unexplained surname; really his book should be refed in the note, even if not see. "Smith, citing Del Miglio.... " If he isn't worth naming in full, is he worth mentioning? Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to a footnote. Savidan 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - btw I misread your initial description of him as "contemporary" above to mean "contemporary now"; as a C17 type who had access to records now lost (I gather) the original text, with 'C17 historian' & a note of his book, would be fine. Sorry about that.
  • other:
  • there is no real artistic context, especially on the form of the tomb. I think this is needed, especially as there is unfortuunately no other WP article I am aware of with anything much useful on the topic, or Italian medieval sculpture in general, except the one on the Verona Scaliger Tombs. Looking at Pope-Hennessy, I see he says Pagno di Lapo Portigiani, whoever he is, also worked on the Coscia tomb - does Lightbrown etc have anything worth mentioning on him? In many ways the design of the tomb is quite conservative, classicising a Gothic pattern. I will try to add something on this. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portigiani - Lightbown says: he spent 18 months working for Donatello and Michelozzo as a marble carver in 1426 and 1427 before going to Siena (p. 22); that we don't really know whether he or Nanni di Miniato (the other known assistant of D. And M. during this period) worked on the tomb (or any other project for that matter) and that when they are mentioned by art historians its generally just an attempt to attribute allegedly inferior aspects of the project to them (p. 48-49). Being as there's no firm evidence that either of them work on the tomb, I can't see more than a note that these were the known assistants during that period (perhaps in the "Attribution" section). If we had an article on Donatello and Michelozzo (which eventually we should) I would say put it there and not in this article at all. As it is, I'll leave it up to you. Savidan 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artistic context - I wan't to avoid any possible original research here and thus do not think that we should mention facts about other sculptures, etc. unless there is a source for making the comparison to the tomb. Thus, I don't think that another section is due, only (as already exists) comparisons within the regular flow of the article. Could you be more specific about what you think would be warranted? I agree that its unfortunate we don't have an article on this topic. Savidan 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with what I've added now. Context is certainly needed. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are good. Am I to assume you resolved your own concern? Savidan 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I want to just have a final read-through before confirming support; maybe today. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support having edited it and added bits myself. A good, well-sourced article, and WP covers medieval sculpture (which ok, this isn't, by a nose) really badly. But I've said enough here already. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support but with one comment Please confirm that 'Most modern scholars accept uncritically this testimony of the executors, attributing Coscia with "tact—and tactics",' (particularly the quote) comes from Janson, 1963, p. 61. If not, please cite this. There may be an issue here that a book from 45 years ago is indicative of "later scholarship" rather than "modern scholars". DrKiernan (talk) 13:56, 20 March 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/Tomb_of_Antipope_John_XXIII&oldid=1138474033"