Template:Did you know nominations/Divine Comedy illustrated by Botticelli

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Divine Comedy illustrated by Botticelli[edit]

(

)

Lucifer's second drawing by Botticelli from Inferno XXXIV.

... that Lucifer's drawing (pictured), from the Divine Comedy illustrated by Botticelli, depicts the whole story of canto XXXIV, and shows Lucifer's geographical location in Hell? Source: jstor p. 193: Quote: The second double-paged, drawing for Inferno XXXIV, which shows its full narrative, elaborates upon the spatial ambiguities of the first [Fig. 32]. This drawing, which depicts the full narrative of canto XXXIV, shows Lucifer's entire body and clarifies his geographical position in the underworld.

Reviewed: The House of Houdini

Created by Dr.K. (talk). Self-nominated at 19:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC).

Hi Dr.K., will be reviewing this one. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There are some weird repetitions in the lead that make it hard to understand. The first paragraph seems to say that the drawings were discovered in the late 19th century, then lost and discovered again, also in the late 19th century. Is this what you meant? The first sentence of the second paragraph refers to the year 1882 twice. Is this necessary? Also, it's not clear to me as to where the drawings are now. Are they still separated with some folios in Berlin and some in Rome? If so, can this be made more explicit in the lead (and perhaps in the infobox as well)?

As to citations, it would be good to provide page numbers for each one. The article be B. Watts is relatively long, so page numbers would make verification easier. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the repetition at the lead. As far as page numbers for each different fact presented in the Watts paper, I thought it would clutter the article with the same reference so I did not use that method. On the other hand, one can go through the paper and find these facts rather fast using the keywords and the search function. I will also check if I can add specific page numbers when time allows. Dr. K. 18:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

Image eligibility:

Freely licensed:
Used in article:
Clear at 100px: - not really, but I'll let the closing reviewer make the call

QPQ: Done.

Overall: — Kpalion^(talk) 16:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact in the hook appears in the only in an image caption, not in the body of the article. DYK rules do not say explicitly that isn't OK, but I'd like to request another reviewer's opinion. I just added the sentence about the double image of Lucifer to the main text of the article. The image is of an old manuscript. If it is not very clear it is not a reason to fail the DYK. I did not want to adjust it because I wanted to keep its original light values because I suspect that the original may well be faint and not pencilled-in. In any case, I will upload an adjusted image for DYK purposes. Dr. K. 18:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

At 40 pages, the other ref is even longer. Both should certainly use page numbers, but this is perhaps not a DYK point. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Just finished the page conversion of the references. All facts now point to specific pages or, in one instance, to a two-page span. Dr. K. 16:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K., great work! Thanks for rewriting and expanding the lead, adding page numbers in citations and adding the fact used in the hook to the body of the article. The hook is now good to go. Still not sure about the image, though; it's great on full page, but I can't make much of it at thumbnail size. Please note: this would never be a reason to fail the entire hook, but it may be a reason to post the hook without an image. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kpalion: Thank you Kpalion for your nice comments. I have uploaded yet another adusted version. Hopefully, it will be ok for a hook picture. On the other hand, at least in my opinion, being an over 500-year masterpiece, its natural faintness just adds to the curiosity of the viewer to click on it to see what it is about. That would be good for the illustrated hook and for the viewership of the article. Dr. K. 20:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Given that I have obtained advice that the previous image of Lucifer is not of good quality for DYK purposes, I propose ALT1 which uses a different, more colourful, higher quality image: Dr. K. 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

ALT1

The illustration for canto XVIII

... that the illustration for canto XVIII (pictured), from the Divine Comedy illustrated by Botticelli, depicts Dante and Virgil descending through the chasms of the eighth circle of Hell? Source: jstor p. 182: Watts, Barbara J. (1995). "Sandro Botticelli's Drawings for Dante's "Inferno": Narrative Structure, Topography, and Manuscript Design". Artibus et Historiae. 16 (32): 182. Quote: "The eighth circle is made up of a series of ten descending chasms (the Malebolge) that Dante and Virgil cross by a continuous ridge, which extends from the top to the bottom of the circle (XVIII:14-18).46 In the thirteen illustrations for this circle, Botticelli consistently placed these ponti on the right side of the composition, breaking the pattern only when the narrative required it or when rendering a chasm for the second time [XVIII-XXXI, Figs. 17-27]."

When promoting this, I did not use either image because they were too difficult to understand at thumbnail size. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)