Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce)/archive1

Add links
Source: 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2016 [1].

Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce)

Ceoil, Kafka Liz

A complex, physical and lifelike thirteenth century crucifixion scene by Cimabue. It is badly damaged now, after flooding in 1966. But its raw impact remains, and it marks an important break from the Byzantine style. Francis Bacon, who didn't give praise lightly, held this as one of his favourite old master works. Ceoil (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

  • Nice to see a really early, foundational painting at FAC!
  • Note it is
    Harold Osborne
    , not the usual Osbourne - I get caught by that too.
No, you haven't! Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit worried by "His body slumps in rigor mortis, contorted by prolonged agony and pain." both in medical and art historical terms. As yr Wikipedian chum could not doubt tell you, rigor mortis only sets in from 4 hours or more after death. Before that the body would relax, losing any "contortions", I would think. In the Gospel accounts Christ seems to have been taken down long before that, the sort of point the Middle Ages took note of. Also you say later this is an early example of the suffering Christ. Some Christs were shown as dead on the cross, but I think only later. This was touchy theological ground, where painters had to take care they were in tune with current Church thinking. I'll look around.
I think what should have been said was close to rigor mortis, but have removed this. I think the point about the suffering Christ should stand, if only for the leap forward in realism this painting represents. I would be most interested if you find more on this. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it seems he is shown dead. See below. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have mentioned the stay in the Uffizi in a note. Clarified that it moved to the Museo dell'Opera post flood damage restoration, but dont yet have the year. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the attribution section is a bit too confident. White, who has 24 pages on Cimabue, and only 3 column inches on this, thinks there are "reasonable grounds for placing [it] in Cimabue's workshop", which is less than a ringing endorsement. Crowe & Cavalcaselle, back in the day, reject the attribution.
I'm working on a redraft of this. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • a) "Each of Cimabue's three surviving crucifixes were commissioned by the Franciscan order." and b) Arezzo cross caption: "The earliest of the two surviving crucifixes attributed to Cimabue ..."
    Now "Both of Cimabue's surviving..." Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found some good stuff in Gertrud Schiller's 75 pages on the Crucifixion image, some specific to this painting. Is it ok if I add? He is dead, though nothing about riggr mortis, which I think is best dropped.
I got rid of the stuff about riggr mortis, and would be delighted if you added. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note we have Joseph Archer Crowe and Giovanni Battista Cavalcaselle
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you still planning to return, Johnbod? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, right. Sorry I haven't added on the death issue, yet at least. But this does need sorting out - see next.
  • Currently the article says, in the same para: "Christ is presented as a limp, defeated corpse nailed to a cross" and "his head falls to the side from fatigue and the physical reality of approaching death.". Then in the next: "His eyes are open and his skin is unblemished" The first doesn't seem the case, and the second is questionable - there are the usual wounds for one thing.
  • "Osbourne" still not corrected (my first point).
Cough. Done. Ceoil (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contemporaries such as Dante believed that Giotto, Cimabue's pupil, developed and perfected the innovations of his master." Neither Dante nor Osborne actually say this. What Osborne says is pretty much as here, and all Dante says is "Cimabue thought to hold the field of painting; and now Giotto’s name is on everyone’s lips, to the point of obscuring Cimabue’s reputation’ (Purgatorio xi, 94–7)" - Grove translation.
    Removed all this. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the attribution section still needs work. You could use the White quote above. At the moment you say " It is relatively primitive compared his 1290s works, and is thus believed to date from his early period. It is considered an important transitional piece, however "antiquated"." ref to Crowe and & Cavalcaselle, back in the day, but to repeat myself, they rejected the attribution.
"antiquated" actually came from Henry Fuseli, much further back in the day, but got mangled in reorgs. Now removed, with earlier career cited to Grove. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Grove bio has useful stuff, which I've sent you. Did you see Osborne on "Crucifixion" also?

Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for sending on the Grove bio, am delighted. Working through incorporating, and addressing your points. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Johnbod and coordinators - the feedback and sources provided here will take another weekend to properly incorporate. Its all very nuanced and frankly exciting, but I need time to digest. Ceoil (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All now incorporated. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Museo_di_santa_croce,_crocifisso_di_cimabue_1.JPG needs a licensing tag for the original work, not just the photo
    PD added. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ivo_Bazzechi_Cimabue_Flood.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this photo first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda

Thank you for an article about a piece of art that impressed me. Minor concerns:

  • "Crucifixion": I am a bit confused by the image of the flood-damaged face that early, and without explanation. I would expect it later, where the flooding is handled.
  • "His eyes are wide open and his skin unblemished, but his body full of power". How "but"? I miss details about the Isaac source. Interesting ideas there!
  • Link for Giotto?
  • "less dependent on specific physical and facial types" - not sure what that means
  • "Saints" - old-fashioned me would prefer the images on the right
  • "Carpentry", image: I don't know if our average readers know "in situ", also it's not in the Basilica itself, but in a chapel in the museum.
  • "Commission": I wonder if that paragraph - of background - should come sooner.

Excellent final statement, about the hybrid piece of art! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thank you for your improvements. I'd prefer to read about present location of the Crucifix in the image caption (in "Carpentry"), but that's a minor concern. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have taken into account all of these points. Ceoil (talk)

Comments from the Bounder

Lead

  • "It is one of two large crucifixes thought to be by his hand,[1] and hung in the Basilica di Santa Croce, Florence since the late thirteenth century, but has been at the Museo dell'Opera Santa Croce since the 1960s" This one sentence is quite long and carries a lot of information: would splitting it aid the flow of the words?
Yes, chopped now. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • The second sentence ("Cimabue achieves a masterful handling of colour.") doesn't seem to follow from its predecessor, ("Medieval churches tended to be extremely colourful ...") and the effect is slightly jarring. I think I know what you're trying to convey, but I'm not sure it works as it stands. (Partly because the section title suggests a description of the crucifix, and you start off with the interior decoration of medieval churches). Maybe switch the church information to the end and then tie it to the crucifix?
agree and have chopped up and reorganised. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifixion

  • "His undress highlights his vulnerability, reinforces his humanity and humility. It seems influenced by a thirteenth-century Franciscan Meditation on Christ..." These two are written in Wikipedia's voice, and I think they (or at least the first sentence) should probably be attributed to someone.
I toned down the wording, which to memory was perhaps more my voice than should have been. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His eyes are wide open and his skin unblemished, but his body full of power; symbolic of everlasting life." I think this should probably be attributed too.
This sentence is confused and misses the point, will clarify,although note except for the everlasting bit, its descriptive. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commission

  • Should mid twenties be hyphenated?
It should Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting article; I hope you find these comments helpful. –

talk) 12:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes I do. Working through and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. That looks great. A note for those who take action on these matters: I am a relatively new editor, so please weigh my comments and support accordingly. Thanks -
    talk) 10:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Your comments were well made. Thank you for helping and supporting the article. Ceoil (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

A nice read - queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of isolated sentences - I'd take that last sentence in the lead and tack it onto the first para. that'll do...

else looking good....support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Moved the sentence, but happy to edit further if it still seems awkward. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Liz beat me to it! Still, thanks Cas. Ceoil (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sagaciousphil

I've watched this article being developed for a while now. Just a couple of very minor nitpicks:

  • Description/Crucifixion, 2nd paragraph: "His nakedness highlight his vulnerability and suffering." Shouldn't it be highlights?
  • 1966 damage and restoration, final paragraph: "The restoration was covered by international press" Could just be me but I'd say the international press?

These niggly little quibbles do not detract from my Support of promotion.

SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

thanks Phil, and for your eye and edits along the way. Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of reference formatting by Cas Liber

All looking ok with reference formatting - as an option, you could separate out explanatory notes like I have at Corona Borealis. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources all look reliable. Are offline so can't check but I can't see any extraordinary claims the article is making to make me concerned. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

will take a look tomorrow Cas, on holiday and a tablet atm. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can safely leave any formatting changes to post-FAC so I'll be promoting this now, tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2016 (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/Crucifix_(Cimabue,_Santa_Croce)/archive1&oldid=791874300"