Talk:The Golden Virgin/GA1

GA Review

Withdrawn per the nominator's request. Ppt91 ^talk 00:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ppt91 (talk · contribs) 18:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

@Lightburst Although I am not sure I will be able to complete this process in the next seven days, I find the work and its history fascinating, and will be happy to review the article. I made some edits to the lead earlier today, but will refrain from making any more direct edits as GAR is ongoing and instead provide a section-by-section feedback below as soon as my schedule permits. Looking forward to working on this. Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime! Ppt91 ^talk 18:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing @Ppt91:. I too was fascinated by the subject. Please edit the article as you see fit if you can: this is the first GA nomination for me. Lightburst (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ppt91 I am wondering of you plan to review this article because it has been almost one month with no activity on the GA review. Thanks for your consideration. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst I am very sorry for my extraordinary delay. I've been swamped with IRL projects and quite overwhelmed in the last few weeks; in addition, I'm behind on two GA reviews here and my own nomination. Are you okay with waiting another week or so for my first round of review? Again, I appreciate your patience. Ppt91 ^talk 16:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Lightburst (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

First off, thanks so much again for your patience; I realize this has taken a while but hopefully we will be able to move fairly quickly from now on. As mentioned, this is a very interesting article analyzing a visually rich work with multiple lives of its own, ranging from the late 19th century to post-WWI Europe.
My initial comments have to do with the overall structure. I believe it would be more beneficial to the reader to move and merge some of the sections. I would like to see some reorganization as a first step before moving on to specific section-by-section review. Of course, this initial reformatting would retain all of your current content, so it's just a matter of presenting it in a clearer manner. Here are my suggestions, following a pretty standard setup for an artwork article, but feel free to comment/disagree if you think these could be phrased differently. Let me know your thoughts on this and we can take it from there. On my part, I will try to be more diligent about replying promptly (to the best of my abilities considering a really packed IRL schedule, which will free up significantly by the beginning of June). Looking forward to working on this together.
- Lead
- Description and analysis
- History
  - Early years (1897–1914) (subsection)
  - World War I and later (1914-1929) (subsection)
- Legacy

Ppt91 ^talk 19:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this, I will get on the changes. Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst I never saw a ping from you and I figured you were still working on this or needed more time! I just saw you addressed the above. Providing next batch below. :)

Background

It would be helpful to include a few words about the sculptor. What kind of work did he specialize in? Do we know why he was chosen for this particular work? What do we know about the commission? My initial search regarding his career reveals that he was a rather orthodox academic and the director of Amiens academy from 1893-1911, so I'd be inclined to think there was something about his traditional, classical style that appealed to the more conservative aesthetic and artistic sentiment of the period. I think perhaps saying a bit more about the basilica itself would be a good idea to provide more context (which I know is also your own article, so hopefully that will be an easy addition).
I would also like to get a bit more context on More and more pilgrims continued to visit the site and Pope Leo XIII was made aware, and visited the site in 1898. From what I read, by then the site had already become popular due to Pope Gregory XVI's according indulgences in 1834 to pilgrims who visit another statue located inside the church. The increase in popularity seems to have resulted in a new basilica and the new sculpture in 1897.

History and analysis

Early years (1897–1914)

Some repetitions throughout that could use copy editing
I would remove the direct quote, as it does not seem to add much substantial information to the work's history
While there is no need to give an exhaustive account of the outbreak of the war, some more context would be useful, especially in terms of how the front moved closer to the area (including a few words about the Battle of Somme); we want to make sure that readers unfamiliar with the topic will be given sufficient historical background

I'll wait for your response before moving to the next subsection. Let me know if you have any questions! Ppt91 ^talk 19:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ppt91: I apologize because I have never participated in a GA review before. I did not know that it would take more than two months. When I nominated it I had more free time to address issues, unfortunately my time is too limited now so I will need to withdraw. Thank you for your time. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst It usually should not take two months (though I have certainly previously participated in quite lengthy reviews) and I am sorry that I wasn't able to provide a more detailed feedback sooner. My schedule has been very busy and I simply needed more time. I understand and respect your decision, however, and will close the GAR per your request. Please feel free to re-nominate the article at any point in the future. Ppt91 ^talk 00:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.