Wikipedia:Peer review/Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion/archive1

Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion edit

I'm mostly concerned about the article's structure; is it repetitive, is some of the detail off topic; are there gaps that have been over-looked. Comments on prose, images, etc are very much welcome. Thanks. Ceoil 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points:

You should clarify what the crucifixtion is in the "Background section" via inserting a Wikilink or mentioning Jesus. WesleyDodds 08:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe place the Kieran quote in "Critical reception"
Also, explain what the passion is in "Themes", or remove the term.
Aside from "The Tryptich" and "Themes" it isn't really repetitive. Use "The Tryptich" for outright description, and move deeper analysis to "Themes" WesleyDodds 08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit edit

Overall, this looks like a very good article. I do not believe that it is too repetitive or tangential at any point. I can't speak to comprehensiveness because I do not know very much about this work. Here are my suggestions:

On the lead:

The Three Studies was purchased by Bacon's lover Eric Hall in 1944, and donated in 1953 to the Tate gallery, London, where it remains part of the gallery's permanent collection. - I wouldn't say that this is the most vital piece of information about the piece. I would not put it in the first paragraph of the lead - I would put it elsewhere in the article.
Three studies represents a summary of themes explored in his previous work, and is generally considered Bacon's first mature completed piece. - what themes might those be? Can you give the reader a hint in the lead?
More than fifty years later, the Irish author Colm Tóibín noted in 2000 that the triptych remains "genuinely startling". - I would leave this quote out of the lead. I generally think that quotations should be used very sparingly in leads. I like the one you have about pre- and post-triptych because it conveys the work's importance but I don't think you need any more than that.
Can you expand the lead a bit to make it more of a summary of the article per WP:LEAD.

He began to paint images based on the Crucifixion in 1933, when encouraged by his early patron Eric Hall, he completed a series of three paintings based on the subject. - not clear
These abstract figurations contain formal elements typical of their time - such as?
at night, abetted by Eric Hall and his childhood nanny Jessie Lightfoot, it functioned as an illicit casino - not quite sure why this is relevant at this point in the article
When he returned to the topic of the crucifixion eleven years later he retained some of the stylistc elements he had earlier developed, including the elongated and dislocated organic forms which he now based on Oresteia". - Is this a quotation? I only see the end quote marks.
Could the "Background" section be labeled something more descriptive since it contains information regarding the actual painting of the work?
the left-hand figure is portrayed in dry layers of white and grey paint - What do you mean by "dry layers"?
Whenever you mention a critic or scholar for the first time, could you identify him or her with a little phrase like "prominent art historian"?
"a sence that everything was going to be alright, and visitors went into the Lefevre in a spirit of thanksgiving for perlis honourably surmounted" - can you check the spelling on this quote?
You need to check back over your quotes in general - some of them have misspellings that I doubt are in the originals. I fixed a few, but then I started getting nervous.
It is unusual in that it directly refers to its inspirations, and interprets that source material in an uncharacteristically literal manner - can you explain further?
I wonder about rearranging the page a bit. For example, I would place the "Critical reception" after the "Themes" section as it currently breaks up the discussion of the painting. Also, I wonder if some of the material on the Furies in the "Themes" section might not be introduced earlier so that readers who don't know what the Furies are have some material to grasp onto.
On prose. I copyedited some spelling and punctuation as I was reading the article. In general, I would say that the writing is very good. The major issues I found were the following:

There are excessive commas in this article; I have removed some of them from the "Background" section.
Sometimes you have punctuation inside the quotation marks and sometimes outside - this should probably be consistent.

On formatting - important if you decide to go for FA.

Some of your footnotes are missing page numbers - they are also not consistently formatted.
Your "Printed sources" list is also not consistently cited and the journal article needs page numbers.

An informative, interesting article - well-done. Awadewit ^Talk 15:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ce and constructive review, the suggestions you made are very helpful. Ceoil 20:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Yannismarou edit

I know there will be still a lot of work in the article, but these are some initial remarks that might help:

In the lead you used the term "Eumenides"; then "furies"; then both of them. This might be a bit confusing for somebody not so familiar with the mythological terminology (until he reaches "Themes" section). That is why I thought that both terms should be mentioned in the lead.
"Based on the vengeful Eumenides/Furies of Aeschylus' Oresteia", "which he now based on the Furies of Aeschylus's "Oresteia"", "The figures in the Three Studies were concieved as visualizations of the Furies in the Oresteia". I get a sense of repetition here, but maybe this is inevitable.
"Critical reception" could be enriched with some modern critics. How do critics nowadays see the triptych? I get a good sense of how the critics and the public received the work in 1945, but what the critics said then?
The structure seems to work fine. Maybe "The triptych" and "Themes" could be combined, but as the editor of the article you will see what works better.
Maybe a section analyzing the impact of the tryptich on Bacon's career or information incorporated in one of the existing sections could be added. You say that "the triptych caused a sensation, and overnight turned Bacon into the most controversial painter in the country." Maybe you could focus a bit more on this issue.--Yannismarou 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thoes are very helpful suggestions. Ceoil 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks reviewers, this was a very productive PR. There is not a single suggestion that I disagree with, and I have moved a copy of the article here so that I can keep a check list on progress with the issues raised. Ceoil 20:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]