Jump to content

Talk:Susanna and the Elders in art

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free!

[edit]

Welcoming anyone who wants to help, as I am not expert in this. —valereee (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 SL93 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Susanna and the Elders by Artemisia Gentileschi
Susanna and the Elders by Artemisia Gentileschi

Created by Valereee (talk). Self-nominated at 17:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Welcome back, valereee! How've you been? New enough, long enough, sourced, neutral, and plagiarism-free. I'm a little concerned about the number of images used in the article; galleries aren't inherently bad, but I think this contains more than needed to illustrate the progression and variance of the styles, which could run into cruft and gratuitous problems. ALT0 is approved as cited (AGF) and interesting; ALT1 is iffier, because the article says one of the men only allegedly raped her. I'd also be interested in a hook about how groundbreaking Gentileschi's first work was for this? Image is public domain and clear at 100px, and this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of a useful illustration of objectionable content (it's about a painting, after all). I'm not entirely inclined to accept Lillian Eichler Watson as a QPQ; it's clear you put a lot of work into assessing it after you adopted the nom, but ticking a hook doesn't quite count; I'd argue that QPQ credit should probably go to BuySomeApples. It's a convoluted one, though. Some minor kinks to work out, but we're almost there; awesome article! I might get the source book, it's at a pretty close library and it looks fascinating... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, okay, I've added another QPQ, but I gotta say that feels a bit like getting points off for doing extra work. I'd think two reviewers could get credit if two reviews were done, myself. Re: ALT1. Not sure how to fix. The two men (plus the image) are what makes it a hook. valereee (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly raped, no, she was raped. Allegedly two seems awkward. Raped by a well-respected older man (allegedly two) is worse. valereee (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I've been good, thanks for asking! Just sort of got busy IRL and then started wondering why I hadn't started working again, so trying to get my joy back. And you? valereee (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I definitely hear you on the QPQ; I'm a little strict with the way I handle it. I usually only see two QPQ credits for a single nom if the original article was so screwed up that the second review had to be a complete re-review of the article content. That said, I'll ping SL93 here; if they're more inclined to accept the original QPQ, I'd be happy to do so and you can save your second for the next nom.
As for the rape- awkwardness isn't great, but it's trumped by accuracy (especially for accusations of rape). Perhaps just say she was raped by an older man and leave the second one out of it? Or "at least one"...
The gallery and optional third hook remain open questions for now. I've been good myself! New stuff here and there, I've shifted a little from creation to expansion—GAs are much harder, so I don't nominate for DYK as often anymore- but they're quite a bit more fulfilling, so it's been a nice bent. Always good to see you around :) cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron I would accept the original review since it's not something that I see happening often. I'm more inclined to treat it similar to IAR exceptions for a nomination being a few days late. This is the second ping from you that I haven't been notified about with the first one being on your talk page about the DYK backlog. I only came across this nomination by chance while browsing DYK nominations. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Is a gallery a DYK thing? I like these ones myself because it makes it easier to compare various points being made, but whatever the art expert editors think is fine with me in the long run, I really just want to get some of them to the article. But for DYK does that really even matter?
  • ALT2: ... that the first of A. Gentileschi's four renderings of Susanna and the Elders (pictured), produced at the age of 17 shortly before she accused two well-respected older men of rape, was one of the earliest to depict Susanna as distressed by the encounter? I think that's 201 but I guess we could IAR. valereee (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, we'll go with the first QPQ, then :) no issues with that. For the hook, i was thinking something more along the lines of:

*:* ALT3: ... that Artemisia Gentileschi's renderings of Susanna and the Elders (first pictured) were among the first to depict Susanna as uncomfortable with the Elders' unwanted sexual advances?

  • My thoughts were that it keeps the hook a bit more focused on the history of the artworks, but i'm happy to defer either way. As for the gallery—it's only a problem for DYKcrit to the extent it becomes fancruft or gratuitous. I highly doubt that the galleries were inserted because of your desire to include gratuitous numbers of naked women; that said, I think that for images that could cause an article to be censored by a school or organization, we should only use as many as the text demands for supplement. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'd prefer ALT0 if we aren't going to mention the situation she was in. Yes, it was one of the first, and I personally find firsts at least a bit interesting, but I think it's much more interesting that she herself was likely dealing with unwanted sexual attention from a respected older man at the time she painted her first rendering and within a very short time was actually raped by him and likely another. valereee (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @valereee: fair enough :) that leaves the gallery and fleshing out the hook. Does "at least one" work for you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    theleekycauldron, I'm going to push back on both, I'm afraid. :) I don't think the gallery is a DYK problem, and I'd like to get input on them from art editors (basically trying to get that input for the entire article is the motivation behind the nom, as I don't write about art) and I'm not sure what 'at least one' solves? Sorry to be difficult, but two men were alleged to have been involved in her rape, the story of Susanna is about two men, and the painting shows two men, not at least one. I feel like it weakens the hook to say at least one. I don't have easy access to Garrard's Artemisia Gentileschi (it's library-use only) but if you'd like to put this on hold until I can get into the main branch, I know the direct support of Cosimo Quorli also being involved is included. valereee (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @valereee: I'm all for punchiness, but if we can't definitively say she was raped by two men, then I think that takes precedence, right? That said, ALT0 is already approved- if you want to get outside opinions on the gallery, I'm all ears. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Theleekycauldron, totally, but I think the Garrard book does support two men being charged with rape. I'll try to get to the lib next week. valereee (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    all righty, keep me posted :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, I've added the source for both men. Garrard writes "Artemisia, moreover, like Susanna, had two assailants". valereee (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@valereee: Well, that sounds good! I should ask, is there a reason to treat this source as more definitive than the previous "allegedly"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron, not sure what you're asking? This is a source that is an expert on A. Gentileschi who, in a 600 page book about Gentileschi, is writing "Artemisia, moreover, like Susanna, had two assailants". The previous wording was because I only had language from Artemisia Gentileschi to use and didn't want to overstate what the sources there were saying, but now I've gone into the lib and gotten access to what is considered a definitive source, and I can definitely say: Garrard said X. valereee (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@valereee: Ah, I gotcha. Okay, so both ALTs check out. Anyone wanna offer input on the gallery? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron, thanks, (lol BUT) I am still pushing back on whether a gallery is a DYK issue. :D valereee (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, seems so :) If it falls afoul of WP:GRATUITOUS, it would be a DYK problem – it seems we have a disagreement over whether that's the case, so I'll post a note at WT:DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

by the consensus vested in me by the DYK community, i hereby declare this good to go :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, TLC! Note to promoter: I think whichever hook we go with, it does need an image slot. It's not just a work of art but highly illustrative of the hook. valereee (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk regarding my last two edits.

[edit]

Hello, I edited the page to include (initially 1, then 2) renditions of this topic to the page, while removing 2 images that were duplicated twice in the page (specifically Artemisia's original 1591 rendition of Susannah, which was originally included a whooping 4 times in the same page. By the time I trimmed it, it was still 3 after synthesis by User:Johnbod, and also Tintoretto's rendition, which perplexingly is shown twice on the very top of the page both on the side and included in the first gallery). What is the purpose of keeping 3 entries of Artemisia's painting and 2 of Tintoretto's? 

Sormando (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding text and images about early Christian and medieval examples

[edit]

Hello, Wikipedians. I've contributed a section on the dozens, possibly hundreds, of images of Susanna and the Elders in catacomb paintings and marble sarcophagi from the late 3rd century on. In that early period, Susanna was almost always shown clothed and served as a symbol of innocence and marital chastity. I tweaked a little of the lead paragraph and the "Story" section to reflect that. As always, corrections and suggestions are always welcome. Nonnabede (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susanna_and_the_Elders_in_art&oldid=1206858592"