Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)/archive1

Add links
From 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2019 [1].

The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Colossus of Rhodes is a minor but striking painting from Salvador Dalí’s later career. Firmly within the avant-garde in the 1930s, by the 1940s and 1950s Dalí was more interested in the world around him than the world inside him. He also had an expensive lifestyle to maintain, which was no doubt helped by the commissioning of this painting as a movie poster for a film about the Seven Wonders. The painting typifies 1950s Dalí: interested in Hollywood and the historical, taking commissions for cash, and only mildly surrealist. Indeed, the work is influenced by an academic paper by the sculptor Herbert Maryon, whose theory for the construction of the Colossus appeared in dozens if not hundreds of newspapers soon before Dalí picked up his brush.

This article uses a wide variety of sources—about Dalí, the Colossus, this painting, and others paintings in the series—to describe and contextualize this work. It is certainly the most comprehensive take published; much more ink has been expended on Dalí’s more significant oils. Nearly a year ago it passed a good article review, and after some further refining and additions, it is ready to be featured. Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:The_Colossus_of_Rhodes_(Dalí).png needs a stronger FUR - for example "Not replaceable with free media because: Irreplaceable"
  • File:First_Version_of_The_Colossus_of_Rhodes.jpg also needs a stronger and more complete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. I've expanded the FUR for the second file. The first already says "Not replaceable with free media because: Irreplaceable"; does it need more? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - my point was that that bit doesn't really convey any information. If something isn't replaceable, of course it's irreplaceable. The question is why - this FUR needs a bit of expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouln't all the wonders mentioned under Background be linked?
  • I've linked them in the new subsection; as they were before, they weren't linked because strictly speaking the names referred to the works by Dalí.
  • I think there could be a bit more background on the ancient statue itself, for example that it was destroyed, which would also explain to the reader why theories about how it was constructed had to be made.
  • Added a subsection to "Background" detailing the history of the Colossus.
  • Similarly, the statue itself should probably be linked presented in the background section rather than in the description, since that's where it is first discussed?
  • Done.
  • "In this context the painting "does not look extremely original." According to who? Such subjective quotes should be attributed in text.
  • Good point. Added.
  • "Dalí copied the likeness of the Colossus put forth by Maryon, clearly depicting hammered plates of bronze, and showing the same tripod structure with the statue supported by a piece of drapery.[18]" This, on the other hand, could go under description?
  • My intent is for "Description" to really just be a physical description of the painting, and "Themes" to be about what Dalí was influenced by.
  • "and had a segmented construction entirely composed of numerous individual plates" Why past tense? This describes the painting and not the actual statue?
  • No idea. Changed.
  • "giving "a vaguely Surrealist touch" to Dalí's work." Again a direct quote, who says this?
  • "focus on cinema and the historical and scientific" focus on cinema, the historical, and the scientific?
  • Done.
  • "and the loosening of his grip on surrealism." His loosening grip on surrealism?
  • Done.
  • "Nor does Dalí offer a particularly original take on the Colossus, which is heavily influenced by Maryon's suggestions" You say basically the same under background, so it seems repetitive. But it probably belongs down there rather than background.
  • Removed the redundancy.
  • Anything on the circumstances of the commission itself and why they weren't used?
  • No, I looked but couldn't find anything.
  • Who made the movie?
  • "and religious" Only stated in the intro.
  • It's under "Themes": the end of World War II introduced a focus on the historical, scientific, and religious, to Dalí's work.
  • "by a hanging piece of drapery" I think it could be clarified that this was sculpted, I first imagined a giant piece of actual cloth...
  • Changed to the Colossus would have been supported on its base by a third point of support in the form of hanging drapery.

FunkMonk, thanks for your comments. I've added a subsection on the history of the Colossus and moved the discussion of Maryon's paper there, which I believe responds to the majority of your comments. Responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - the extra context is nice, someone might think it is a bit too detailed, but I'll leave that to other reviewers to decide. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil[edit]

The article is very strong on historical context, and especially gives insight as to why Dali painted this frankly, very poor, work at the end of his career, having moved to the States. Fascinating stuff; none the less, the "description" section is under cooked, apart from it being described as "massive" etc. Would like to see more on the colors, themes, iconography, and esp. perspective, etc, etc; maybe because to my eyes none are equal to his earlier work. Don't see any aesthetic appraisal here as of yet, although have every confidence in the nominator in this area, and look forward to supporting.

The nominator should feel quite free to revert any of my changes if viewed as preferences, or if intended meaning has been changed. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed edits, Ceoil. I've made some changes, which I have tried to explain in the edit comments; please see what you think. As to the description, I've added another line based on a book I just ILL'd, and am due to pick up another one soon, so will see if I can add anything more. I suspect that there will not be much, however; most works that talk about this painting do so in passing (see here, for example, and a Google Translated copy of the Colossus section from book I just received), and focus less on the painting than on how it exemplifies Dalí's later works. How would you recommend dealing with this? I know Wikipedia tolerates largely-uncited plot summaries for fictional works, but am not sure if using one's own eyes to describe the basic attributes of a painting is similarly appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Usernameunique; briefly, I followed the changes while binge watching TV on Netflix. Agree with all your changes. Need to consider re sources; talk soon. Ceoil (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Given we have blue links, not sure that, by my estimate, almost a third of the article needs to be devoted to a general overview of the Colossus of Rhodes. I would trim this drastically. Ceoil (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in, I can't really agree, Ceoil... Yes when you say it like that, a third seems a lot, but I think when one reads it it does help one better understand the subject at hand. I mean lose the Caeser quote by all means, as we discuss "astride" anyway and even have a related image, but I think the rest works well and leads logically to the last para, which is obviously very closely related to the painting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would at least, as you say Ian, loose the quote, and the claim beginning with "the others are the". Would also drop "The Colossus is among the least recorded of the seven wonders" - "There are no extant contemporary depictions; the only evidence is textual" is enough. That's the kind of thing that could be used to trim it down and make proportional to this short article overall. I do think there are structural issues overall with the page, which to be fair to the nominator, I haven't had time to think about and detail yet. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, those judicious trims seem fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe also such details as "Sutton Hoo helmet.[10][11]" and "On 3 December 1953" (we already know 1953) and "the Society of Antiquaries of London" are extraneous. Not opposed to shorter articles being at FAC if focused and concise. I'm gathering this page is near the sum of the available sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense all around. The Shakespeare part is definitely indulgent. My turn to turn towards the sack, so I'll incorporate tomorrow. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The paintings for the film were made, yet went unused, is antiquated language, and this stuff is all over the article. Why not just "He produced other art works for the film, but they were not included in the final production." Ceoil (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested rephrasing shifts the topic of the sentence from the seven paintings made for the film to the six other paintings, not including the one on the Colossus. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article presents as art historical, but is too slight on such content for my taste. The majority of its content is on background detail, rather than on the painting, as promised in the article title, but barely described on reading. I have major issues with art articles being padded out with introductory paras on the mythology and histography of the subject matter and then on the artist; this is endemic on es. and de. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil, I've incorporated most of the changes recommended earlier. The two things I've thought best to keep are the names of the other seven wonders—an article about one is incomplete without mentioning all, it feels—and the clause about what Maryon is best known for (the Sutton Hoo helmet), which is somewhat tangential, but interesting (it's how I learned about the painting). Generally speaking, I do think we have different perspectives on this article. It's unclear how restructuring it by essentially combining half of it into one jumbled section, as you suggested, would make it better, but even more than that, I feel that removing the contextual information would make the article markedly worse. The section on the Colossus was added because of a suggestion, by FunkMonk, in this very FAC; meanwhile, the sources that discuss this painting use it to typify Dalí's later career—interested in the historic and scientific, not the surreal—and so not discussing Dalí's later career would leave this article substantially incomplete. As to your last comment, if you can indeed find a source in the bibliography that is not used in the article, I would be very surprised. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure I suggested a jumbled section. Quite the opposite. I don’t think the structure as stands is coheriant, esp with two, as framed, general history / bio background sections opening after the lead, that as framed, could be served by blue links.Ceoil (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, your "rough suggestion for structure" suggested in this edit was to create a six-paragraph "Inspiration and themes" section which seesawed between topics, and hid discussion of the painting—the focus of this article—in the middle. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hense the usage of the word rough, and note I immediately reversed that test edit. My worry here, is that after this page, barely dyk standard painting articles can now be considered at Fac. Ingres’ portrait of Napoleon? Easy... Napoleon was a...Ingres was a ....half the article done now. My oppose stands. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, maybe we should ask the others to weigh in here: FunkMonk, Ian Rose, Casliber, & Brianboulton. I think the background information helps explain the painting, but I'm also not the most objective person here. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I would point out here is we can't write what the sources don't, so if no source describes the painting in more detail, there is little we can do. And the FAC criteria do not demand this either, we can only reflect what the sources say. As for the added context, I think some of it could maybe be cut down, but I think there was too little until I asked for it. But Ceoil can of course compare the article before and after and see what is preferred:[2] If it is decided the earlier version is better, I will not oppose if it is reinstated, I only think it helps the reader, and makes the article more comprehensive, but this is of course a subjective issue. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes as long as it’s not lost is that at least half the page is background; not a good enough ratio, imo, for an FA, which will enviablly be held up as a standard to aim for. Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I've trimmed a bit from "Background." Reading it over again, however, I'm a bit confused by your general objection to this section. "The Colossus" section has a paragraph about the Colossus, generally, but the second paragraph is about Maryon's theory of the Colossus; this is directly relevant to the painting, which cribs Maryon's theory. The "Salvador Dalí" section, meanwhile, has a paragraph about Dalí's fascination with Hollywood, and a second paragraph about his commission for these paintings. Both of these seem quite relevant to the painting, evincing Dalí's general reasons for wanting to paint movie posters, and his specific commission for the movie. So what, specifically, would you remove? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the trimming now makes the section much more focused. Still not sure if "Salvador Dalí" is the most well chosen title for that section; it gives the impression of more general background padding, rather than as you say, "evincing Dalí's general reasons for wanting to paint movie posters".
  • Changed to "Dalí and Hollywood".
  • his popular 1930s surrealist movement heyday - It wasn't "his" 1930s surrealist movement - "The peak of his popularity during the 1930s surrealist movement"
  • I agree that this language—which you inserted here and here—is problematic. I have reverted it to my earlier wording.
  • In the lower right is signed "Salvador Dalí / 1954, "is signed" sounds very old fashioned; "The lower right had corner bears the signature...."
  • Reworded: In the lower right Dalí signed and dated the work "Salvador Dalí / 1954".
  • his loosening grip on surrealism - his move away from - its not that he had an intellectual hold on it even back in the day
  • "his move away from" does not appear in the article. Are you suggesting that that phrasing replace "his loosening grip of surrealism"? If so, no problem with that.
  • A piece of drapery hangs around the waist of Helios and from his left arm - "around his waist and left arm"
  • Reworded: A piece of drapery wraps around the waist of Helios and hangs from his left arm,
  • What is a "segmented construction entirely composed of numerous individual plates"
  • How would you rephrase? It means lots of (relatively) small, individual bronze plates stitched together into a whole. It is also seen in the image of the painting (which I wish could be larger), and alluded to earlier: Made of hammered bronze plates less than 1⁄16-inch (1.6 mm) thick, Maryon said, the Colossus would have been supported on its base by a third point of support in the form of hanging drapery.
  • The end of World War II introduced a focus on the historical, scientific, and religious to Dalí's work - The cause and effect is left vague here, ie you dont say why.
  • Reworded to give WWII less credit for the transformation. Per the source, "after the end of the Second World War a newfound interest in scientific, religious and historical subject-matter meant that the authenticity of Dalí's exploration of the subconscious began to drain away, to be replaced by something far more calculated in effect. Moreover, after 1940 a new banality often entered into Dalí's work".
  • a 1954 ink-on-cardboard work - Rather than "work" which is vague, maybe "composed with ink-on-cardboard".
  • Do you mean "a work composed with ink on cardboard"? That would still have the word "work", but in any event, I think the "ink-on-cardboard" modifier adequately illuminates the otherwise vague word "work".
  • Compared with Maryon's paper, wrote the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ, the painting "does not look extremely original". Wot. This is hard to parse on several levels; not least because the source its self seems confused or at least hyperbolic - "extremely original" seems like promo guff. Also " wrote the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ" sounds dated, as if very old sources were used.
  • Reworded the tense ("writes" rather than "wrote"). I think de Callataÿ's is just going for understatement.
  • Are all the listed sources used as foot notes.
  • Am looking forward to supporting this article. Ceoil (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have taken liberties in trimming a bit further, mostly as per above. Anyways, Support, an interesting article to have taken on, esp. the revealing sections on Dalí in hollywood. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian[edit]

As a bit of Dali fan (as much for his involvement in Un Chien Andalou and L'Age d'Or as for his paintings, admittedly) I'm hoping to find time to recuse from coord duties to review -- consider this a placeholder till then... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Rose, I look forward to it. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of comments later, time to hit the sack now after my ce... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one of a series of seven paintings created for the 1956 film Seven Wonders of the World, each depicting one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. -- do you think we could lose the repetitive "each depicting one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World"; sure it leaves no-one in any doubt but I think it follows that if you're creating seven paintings for a film about the Seven Wonders...
  • That's mostly there to add the link to the Wonders (which also appears in the body). I've changed it to each depicting one of the eponymous wonders, but can just remove if you think that's still too obvious.
  • In 1955 he also executed a similar copy, Walls of Babylon -- do we mean "another version of Walls of Babylon"? If so, simpler to express that way I think.
  • Done.
  • Helios raises his right hand to shield his eyes from the sun that he is the god of -- I wonder (pun unintended) if we can lose that dangling "of"; "Helios raises his right hand to shield his eyes from his domain, the sun" or something like that?
  • Reworded. Helios raises his right hand to shield his eyes from the sun over which he reigns
That's about it prose-wise. Obviously a minor work in Dali's catalogue but not as bad as all that I think -- there is at least nice irony in the sun appearing more powerful than its god at this moment. Article seems comprehensive, and I'll take Nikki's image review as read. I wouldn't mind someone else checking sources but may be able to if no-one else does for while. Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Ian Rose. Responses are above. It's definitely not one of his more interesting paintings, but it's quite nice to look at—moreso than his others in the series, I think. And much as it has been said to exemplify a later-career lack of creativity on Dalí's part, it is interesting to see how he incorporated a sculptor's theory of the Colossus into his own depiction. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few changes since my last copyedit/review; no concerns for the most part but I did feel constrained to tweak a few things here and there. I'm certainly leaning support but I guess I'd like to see how Ceoil feels about the current version so we can all agree on the final cut. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, ready to pile on with support. Cheers, 23:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...

The Colossus of Rhodes was a very large statue... - not fond of "very large" here, "monumental"? or put in the purported height?
Agreed. (It was originally "massive," and then changed in a copyedit above.) Have changed to "monumental."
Dalí's most important works are dated before 1940, when he was preoccupied with the subconscious and the nature of perception - "most important" is subjective, maybe "best-known"?
Changed to "most recognized." I don't think "best-known" quite encapsulates the point, which is less about how other people identify his works than about how the works are considered to fit into, and advance, artistic movements.

Otherwise reads well. Agree with Ceoil that the description section is a little light, but then again if there is no source elaborating then you can't really do much. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Casliber. Responses are above. Agreed that "description" is somewhat short, but I've added everything I've been able to find that describes it. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Fix ping: Casliber. --Usernameunique (talk)[reply]
Ultimately, its a tentative/weak support from me. It reads well, but a little bit problematic that under half the prose relates to the work itself. However, if there is no more on the description then that is not actionable, and I'd not remove any of the context as the context is about right I reckon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Spotchecks not done
  • The sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. You might add that the Badoud source language is French. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • The reproduction ia not very good. Would it be possible to use the better one at [3]?
  • Do you mean the quality, or the resolution? Unfortunately due to fair-use restrictions, we're limited to a small image. I chose the one in the article because of the colors, which are brighter than the one you link to.
  • I meant the resolution, although that may be due to the larger size. The image you use has brighter colours, but probably not more realistic. The Dali Foundation image is likely to be better and the clouds look to me the wrong colour in the image you use. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image in the article was copied from here, which is of reasonable resolution. Dalí does seem to have painted some clouds similarly (see, e.g., here, and it would be hard to tell which image is closer to reality without seeing the painting in person. The one you point to also has a watermark (bottom center), which I'm not wild about.
  • "was donated to its present location in the Kunstmuseum Bern." Donation to a location sounds odd to me. I would say donation to the museum.
  • "stood by the harbour of Rhodes for more than half a century in the third and fourth centuries BC" Fourth is wrong. The wiki article on the statue says that it was constructed in 280 BC and my 1973 Britannica says that it stood for 56 years until destruction in c. 224.
  • Whoops. Fixed.
  • It seems too off topic to list the other wonders in the background section. An alternative would be to link them below as Dali's paintings e.g. "of the Temple of Artemis" instead of Temple of Artemis.
  • I would delete. You link to the article about the wonders. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "In his ninth-century AD Chronographia, Theophanes the Confessor recorded that its ruins remained until 652–53" As Theophanes was writing 150 years later perhaps "according to him" rather than he recorded.
  • Changed to "he wrote."
  • "The paintings for the film were made, yet went unused." This sounds a bit clumsy. Maybe "The paintings were not used in the film."
  • Changed to The paintings were ultimately not used for the film.
  • In the discussion of frauds in the last paragraph I am not clear whether you are referring specifically to lithographs of the Colossus or of his works as a whole.
  • The sources discuss Dalí's lithographs generally, not specifically referencing those of the Colossus of Rhodes (except for the first sentence, Lithographs replicating The Colossus of Rhodes are also frequently offered for sale.). That said, the fact that you can buy 202 lithographs of this work at once suggests that they are subject to the same problems as Dalí's other lithographs. I've also looked at a few books on his lithographs, and didn't see specific mention of those of the Colossus.
  • You need to clarify that "these works" refers to his lithographs in general, not just those of the colossus. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • This seems a good summary considering the unfortunately limited sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@FAC coordinators: The comments above have been fully addressed, and nothing is outstanding. Unless you have further requests, I think this is ready to move forward. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2019 (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/The_Colossus_of_Rhodes_(Dalí)/archive1&oldid=1138473015"