Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope Paul III and His Grandsons/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pope Paul III and His Grandsons[edit]

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 08:34, 12 June 2014 [1].


Pope Paul III and His Grandsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highly complex triple portrait by Titian, c 1545. I hope it gives insigt into how court intrigue operated mid 16th century, though this is only a glimps. Thanks to Cocolacoste for her dilgent c/e, encouragment and suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for Ottavio's Chevalier?
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Sources contains a mix of cited and uncited sources - suggest splitting out a Further reading section
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate "University" in publisher names. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks doing Ceoil (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

  • The prose is in a mix of BrEng and AmEng: we have "colour", "criticised" and "emphasising", but "maneuvering", "aging" and "centered".
  • Background
    • "Titian was precisely the sort of man" – this is hard to understand, or am I being especially dim? Should "Titian" read "Paul"? And was he defending the Florentines or they him?
      Your not dim. Thats somebody else. Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description
    • "and his two suitors" – an unexpected noun.

That's all I have by way of quibbling. I look forward to adding my support. Tim riley talk 19:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A fine article, clear, interesting, balanced, well and widely sourced and – rather important – beautifully illustrated. Pleased to add my support for its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 07:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are a gentelman and all round good dude in a generally unhappy atmosphere; your support means a lot. Ceoil (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File check[edit]

I think the uploader confused other versions for source; corrected now. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I know little about art, but this reads very well and looks comprehensive. Forgive any ignorance I show in my queries! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Portrait of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese: I assume that this was another Titian, but this is the only image where the artist is not explicitly named in the caption.
    Clarified now. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The work is often compared to Raphael's Pope Leo X with Cardinals of 1518–19 and 1511–12 portrait of Julius II for its colourisation and psychological dynamic. Titian had earlier copied the Leo panel, but made subtle tonal changes to flatter the subject.": From my reading of this, Titian did another painting based on Raphael's. Could this be made a little clearer? For example, what was the name of the painting?
  • I removed this, partly as its incidental. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and his usual final over gaze or glossing is absent": I'm assuming this should be "over glaze"; I also wonder should it be hyphenated?
  • "and after in 1538 allowed only Titian to portray him": I think something has gone awry here!
  • Is there anything about how this painting was received at the time? Was it ever displayed?
  • Nope; it didnt resurface for another 100 years. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did it end up in the Museo di Capodimonte, Naples? (This is mentioned in the article, but not the main body) What happened to it in the intervening years?
  • Very good question; digging. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Probably once the benefice was granted, he no longer felt there was any reason to remain in Rome and abandoned the composition": I can imagine a few people might have been a little hacked off at this! Did the relationship between Paul and Titian change after this? Could he really just walk out like that?
  • He could, and did. They needed him more than he needed them, so was holding more cards. He had a few agendas, so was able to walk. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these queries, great work, and I'll be delighted to support when these are answered. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarastro1, working through these, will update. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An excellent article, and with the qualifications about my subject knowledge made above, I think this meets the criteria. I'd still like to know how it got to Naples and how it resurfaced a hundred years later, but this is not enough for me to withhold my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, from what I gather, as Titian abandoned it, the picture was though best forgotten by the F family for a century. I'm not sure its provedence is known after that until its current placement, though I have searched extensively, am none the wiser unfortunatly Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think you need to be consistent whether you refer to him as Paul or Paul III, or some readers might wonder whether you are referring to different people.
  • Just Paul now outside of intro and pic capts. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paul was precisely the sort of man the Florentines needed to defend against French and Spanish threats." Strictly this means that the Florentines were defending Paul but I assume you mean the other way round. Maybe something more clumsy like 'needed to assist their defence'
  • Picture caption: "If not for his appointment, Ottavio had proved himself as a formidable man in his own right, having earned the Order of the Golden Fleece from Charles, and a Chevalier in 1547." This strikes me as an odd wording. How about: "Ottavio proved himself a formidable man in his own right, earning the Order of the Golden Fleece from Charles, and becoming a Chevalier in 1547."
  • "He took the papacy in 1534." Does someone take the papacy? I suggest "He became Pope."
  • "Both of Paul's grandson's advancements were widely criticised as evidence of Paul's tendency towards nepotism." Apostrophe in wrong place and Paul twice in one sentence. "Both grandsons' advancement" perhaps.
  • "Following his father's 1547 assassination". As this has not been previously mentioned, I would prefer "In 1547 his father was assassinated."
  • "the commissioning of the portrait was likely intended by Paul". I think probably would be better than likely.
  • After 1538 Paul only allowed Titian to portray him, but he did not meet Titian until 1543. This could do with clarifying. Did he refuse any portrait for five years?
  • "he asked that Pomponio would be granted the abbey of San Pietro" I would leave out the word 'would'.
  • "The abbey was set in grounds bordering his own in Ceneda." Whose own?
  • "the painter had clout" - a bit colloquial. I think influence would be better.
  • "Raphael's portraits show high-minded and introspective". This is ungrammatical.
  • "This dramatic colourisation and luminosity can be in part attributed to this design, but is also to the manner" I think it should be "is also due to the manner".
  • "Although Ottavio was the more able, neither were to assume the papacy after Charles V weakened the Medici hold on the office." Was Ottavio a possibility as a married duke? This comment is not referenced.
  • I removed it alogether. It was problamatic, as you say. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ottavio is presented as cold and impervious, but this was likely a device". I would prefer probably to likely.
  • "At the time of the portrait Paul had convinced Alessandro to retain the post, hinting that he would later succeed as pope – an aspiration that was ultimately frustrated. As Alessandro realised the emptiness of both promises". One hint becomes two promises?
A very interesting article. I look forward to supporting it. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dudley, will get stuck into these. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley, have most of these resolved, wait another tick. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very good article. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dudley. Ceoil (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with the disclaimer that Ceoil asked me for a preliminary peer review and I made a few edits at that time. I thought then it fulfilled the FA requirements, and after the work done during this review, it's improved even more. Nice job! Victoria (tk) 15:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Victoria, for all your edits and this support. Ceoil (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby In the title, shouldn't "his" be "His"? Indopug (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2014‎

The sources are about 50/50; I'm indifferent. Let me think. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO: Good call. Done Indopug. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: the full title isn't used even once after the first sentence. A couple of "the work"s or "the portrait"s could probably be replaced.—indopug (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rephrased now. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: In the "Description" section you twice mention the 1543 Naples portrait, yet your caption for the image of this portrait dates it as 1545–46, the same year range as for the "grandsons" painting. This surely can't be correct – unless I'm missing something? Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now dated in the caption as 1543. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SupportOppose from Hamiltonstone. Beautifully written and carefully sourced piece. A small but crucial element is missing from the body text, though hinted at in the lead. The lead tells us where the work hangs, and makes reference to it spending a century in a Farnese cellar. The substance of the article not only lacks these facts (and cites) but lacks any information about provenance. This would be pretty important information for an old and major work, i would have thought. Other points:

  • "He became pope in 1534 when he was 51 years old, so he was keenly aware that age was against him." That seems a typical age for a person to reach the peak of their career - even youngish in modern terms. So it is far from clear why "age was against him". Can you clarify? hamiltonstone (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the opinion of art historians Rodolfo Pallucchini and Harold Wethey." There is no inline citation provided for this.
Hi Hamiltonstone. I removed the first claim, and the second is now cited. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...separated by colour and tone." This may be a nitpick - but it is not colour and tone that separates the two halves, rather the two halves are characterised by contrasting colour and tone...?
  • "he began with a dark background, then layered the lighter hues before the darker passages." I don't understand the use of the term "passages" here.
  • "...yet x-ray analysis reveals he had originally stood to the right-hand side and was moved,..." Previously, i think all references to the left and right (when talking about the three people in the picture) have been made with reference to position in comparison to the Pope. In this case the reader is a little confused, because he is on the right-hand side of the Pope. You mean, i understand, the right-hand side of the picture, but it would be easier for the reader if all of these orientations were characterised in the same way.

I'm a support if the provenance / exhibition information can be added. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a provenance section. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's fabulous.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2014 (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/Pope_Paul_III_and_His_Grandsons/archive1&oldid=1138469204"