Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood

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 00:51, 10 May 2008.

Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood

[edit]

Self-nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it is a well-referenced and thorough piece about an important work of art. It originally started as a paper for an art history course (the other paper I wrote for that course, Tomb of Antipope John XXIII, recently became featured, and the prof liked this one better...). The article is currently recognized as a Good Article and all the images are free. I hope that you'll support this article, but I'd also be glad to attend to any actionable objections. Savidan 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Sources look good. And by one of my favorite painters! Cool! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment for now, the three indeeds do not sound encyclopedic. --GrahamColmTalk 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them. I look forward to your comments once you've had more time to look at it. Savidan 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the current version. A beautifully written and engaging article. I'm tempted to comment on the discussion below but Savidan is more knowledgable than I. --GrahamColmTalk 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Generally seems rather dense & lacking in general explanatory material to help those unfamiliar with the subject area(s). The destination of all the links needs checking: I spotted Ranuccio Farnese, relief and others. Is Captain-General very helpful? Guild of Saint Luke mentions the Florentine apothecaries, and would be better than "guild", as would Perspective (graphical), rather than "visual".
  • Was Hawkwood a mercenary for the English?
  • "Actus" on the inscription needs explaining.
  • Some context on equestrian statues at the time would help, not to mention sculpted monuments.
  • Has the fresco been "moved repeatedly since its creation"?

Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Johnbod. There is no article for Ranuccio Farnesese; I originally pointed the link to the disambiguation page in the hopes that one would be created. I have rerouted it to House of Farnese, which can at least tell the reader about the importance of his family. Relief is pointing to the correct place. Capital-General is helpful I believe, as it explains the importance of the rank in general (although an article about the title as it specifically applied to Florence would obviously be more helpful). I have rerouted the Guild and perspective links as you suggested.
  • I would have to say, yes, Hawkwood was a mercenary for the English during the Hundred Years War, although obviously your question gets to the matter of the definition of mercenary, particularly in an era when "official" militaries were less formalized than they are today.
There is no suggestion of this in Frances Stonor Saunders's - Hawkwood: The Diabolical Englishman (2004) (US edition: The Devil's Broker: Seeking Gold, God, and Glory in 14th Century Italy (2005)). Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that the exact command and remuneration structure of the English during the Hundred Years War is not really my expertise or the subject of this article. Upon further searching, I've found that his service in the Hundred Years War is really just a footnote to his real career which occured as a mercenary in Italy; nothing definitive either way. I'll try to make the article vaguer until someone finds something definitive. It is pretty clear that both the Great Company and its derivative, the White Company, were mercenary organizations. Caferro's chapter in "The Hundred Years War: A Wider Focus" makes this clear, but not explicit. Don't know if this Google books link will work. Savidan 20:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was just a normal soldier, who rose sufficiently to be knighted. The question is whether, when he then took his company off raiding, he was acting independently or (more probably) with official approval. Either way, he was not a mercenary - bandit maybe. This is before the Great Company period. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, his use of the title "sir" is a rather curious thing and not proof of (official) knighthood. I'll add a footnote to the article to that effect. Savidan 21:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something a bit better supporting an ambiguous wording: Caferro says that the claim that he joined the black prince's army as a longbowman "lacks direct evidence" and presuages it with "according to tradition." Caferro describes his service as "directly under a subcontractor." Savidan 21:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saunders agrees about the longbowman thing, but that does not make him a mercenary. "Subcontractor" is an odd term to use, presumably referring to the standard "thirds" system for splitting booty of the feudal army. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I overlooked the Caferro link, & now I've read it, there is nothing there that can support "mercenary" for his period in the English army. I'm a bit worried though that Cafarro seems to think the denarius was an English medieval currency.... Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, do you think that there is anything that needs to be added to the article as it currently stands vis-a-vis the HYW. I've already removed the offending text. Savidan 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a short phrase, as it was where he became a commander - I'll look at the two bios & add something. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a footnote explaining the italianization/latinization of Hawkwood's name.
  • I will provide a link to the equestrian statue article, but am extremely cautious about adding such "context", as it is difficult to provide such content without falling into the trap of original research. If you could be more specific about what you are looking for, perhaps I can find something sourced to include.
  • This was in a footnote, and I am beginning to think that it should be moved into the body of the article, and will do that now.
As to your general comment about the article being "dense", I would prefer if you could try to keep your comments specific and actionable. Give as many examples as you need to, but its very hard for me to remedy your concerns in the abstract. Savidan 00:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be original research if you used the excellent library you have access to, would it? At the moment the article just lacks an overview on the artistic side, which is rather overwhelmed by the historical. "Relief" needs at least "effect" added. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about the relief (although I think this is implied by tromp d'loeil). What I mean is not that I can't find sourced content about equestrian statues, but that I think it would constitute original research to add such content to this article without a source which makes the connection between the painting and another equestrian monument or the genre as a whole. As far as I can tell, the only real relevance here is the possibility that it contributed to the selection of Uccello and the manner in which the fresco was modified to be less warlike (both already mentioned). Savidan 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article already points out the way the painting attempted to achieve the effect of an equestrian statue, I don't see why it would be OR to add a bit on what equestrian statues existed at the time, and what they might have meant for a contemporary viewer. In fact such comparisons with the Uccello are not hard to find, I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, are you only looking for a general summary of the state of equestrian statuary at the time or do you have any specific connection to the Hawkwood in mind? Savidan 02:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence. I consider it to be a bit tangential to the subject of the article, but I think it satisfies the underlying rationale in your comment. Savidan 03:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have given this a copyedit, fixed a couple stray dashes, and tweaked a few references to add full stops. (I also tried to roll back one of my edits, instead rolled back all of my edits, and then had to fix it - it's really not my night!) Some remaining issues:

  • I'd like to see the main image size bumped to something like 250px; there is precedent for this in an article about a work of art.
  • "The fresco is ... a relatively well-known aspect of his career" - can a tangible object really be an aspect of one's career?
  • "Hawkwood first married Donnina, the illegitimate daughter of Bernabò Visconti, in 1377." - why the 'first'? Did he marry again later?
  • "Hawkwood's massacre at Cesana in 1377 during the twilight of his papal employment during the War of the Eight Saints" - please fix during...during; also, 'Hawkwood's massacre' is peculiar phrasing.
  • "Hawkwood had principally served the Visconti of Milan and their allies in Pisa, Lucca, and Siena, principally against the interests of Florence" - fix principally...principally please.
  • "Sensing that Hawkwood was likely to be in his final days, the ambiguous plans of the Signoria might well have been meant as a tomb rather than a cenotaph;" - This sentence needs a little work: the first phrase modifies the Signoria, while the second phrase is about the plans of the Signoria.
  • Two different dates, March 17 and March 18, are given for Hawkwood's death.
  • I know it's really hard to work this into prose, but some context regarding the slew of critics/historians who are mentioned by name would be helpful to readers. Salmi and Hartt, in particular, are not interwiki linked, not listed in the Notes or References, and are never even mentioned by their full names.
  • The Masaccio mentions need some work: his name is inconsistently spelled; the first mention is not interwiki linked; and some context would be helpful (what is 'eye-point perspective'?).
  • "Although the fresco is often called "monochrome", its background is dark red, the horse and tomb are accented in red, black, white, and orange; 3.5 m from the horse's hooves to the top of Hawkwood's cap." - I can't tell what the '3.5 m from the...' phrase is meant to convey here.
  • "This style has even been as an example of synthetic realism in line with the late Gothic movement." - there is a verb missing here.

Thanks for an interesting read on a topic under-represented at FAC. Maralia (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copy editing and your thoughtful comments, Maralia. I have done as you say with the image, although it is likely to get undone as the policy favors not specifying image size. As the the marriages, I have removed "first" as there is actually scholarly disagreement over the number of Hawkwood's marriages, though this aspect of his biography is not relevant to this article. I think you said it exactly about the art critics: their biography is not germane to the painting and would break the flow of the article. I wish that we had an article aout them to link to; I'll try to at least cite everyone who is mentioned by name. The 3.5 m thing was an artifact of writing process which shouldn't have made it into the final article. I believe I have remedied your other comments. Savidan 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns have been addressed. Well done! Maralia (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

  • Is there a better picture of the fresco? The actual one is much greener than the photograph shows.
  • I thought Hawkwood's biography drifted rather from the point and skips material highly pertinant to his links with Florence. For instance, according to Saunders' The Diabolical Englishman, which curiously is listed in the references but not actually cited, Hawkwood was operating a protection racket in Florence and was essentially paid not to attack it with his own men.
  • I also have a feeling that the fresco was apparently based on a grave effigy (no longer extant). Any information of this?
--ROGER DAVIES talk 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Roger. I chose from the available images on Wikisource for the picture of the fresco and this was the only one. Even though photos of two-dimensional works of art are probably uncopywritable, I wanted to avoid trawling the internet.
I have added information on Hawkwood's financial arrangements with Florence during the War of the Eight Saints, which is what Saunders is referring to. The reference was added by another featured article reviewer. I left it because it provides a good extended biography, even though I don't think its the best source for an article about the fresco itself.
Hmmm, interesting theory about the grave effigy. Hawthorne, Leader, and Vasari (as translated) describe the fresco itself as an "effigy", but do not mention the use of a grave effigy in its painting. Have you read this anywhere or is this just your hunch? If its someone else's speculation, I am glad to include it. ;) Savidan 14:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not my hunch: I really don't do much original thought :) The only problem is I can't remember where I heard it. It may have been at the Duomo itself as I was reading Saunders (and the Merchant of Prato) at the time. In fact, I have a postcard of the fresco as a bookmark for the book. I was sure it was mentioned in Saunders though. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind double checking those? I don't have access to either. Savidan 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something. Basically she speculates that Uccello took the face from the faded work by Gaddi and Arrighi, which was in turn based on Hawkwood's death mask. I haven't added anything about the effigy because I think I'm confusing it with the proposed sculpture, which presumably would have been based on a death mask. Hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a ton. I think it's a good touch. Do you have any other comments about the article? Savidan 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure. I'd love to add bits but I'm quite busy with RL stuff at the moment. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues. Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This sentence seems a bit too long to me. He fought for England during the Hundred Years War and then with the "Great Company" which harassed the Avignon Papacy; after gaining command of the "White Company" from Albert Sterz in the 1360s, Hawkwood led the company across the Alps in 1363 in the employ of John II, Marquess of Montferrat, to take part in his war against Milan. Can it perhaps be rephrased or broken up?
  • condottieri is italicized sometimes and not italicized others. This should be consistent
  • I feel like the section on Uccello is a little out of place in this article. I understand that you'd need the first few sentences which descrive why he might have been chosen, but the rest of his biography does not seem to belong here. I think the article would flow much better without this section.

Karanacs (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would not agree with just removing the section on Uccello! The main problem with the article is too little art-historical contecxt, not too much. But, like the rest of the article, it has too many facts, and not enough interpretation of them. Perhaps we are saying the same thing though. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very possible. As currently in the article, the section on Uccello just doesn't fit -it's full of facts that appear to have no bearing on the monument. If those facts could be more explicitly linked (in a non-OR way) to the monument then there wouldn't be an issue. Karanacs (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have remedied the first two comments. As to the Uccello section, the objectives here were four-fold: (1) to provide a bare bones introduction to Uccello's work as a whole, while inviting readers to read that article for anything more specific, (2) to place the fresco within the timeline of his biography and other works, (3) as a corrolary of the previous, to give context as to Uccello's standing at the time of the commissioning and to invite a comparison to where his career went afterwards, and (4) to show the basic similarities between the fresco and Uccello's other works, which gives the reader an idea of why he might have been chosen for the commission and has implications for the uncertain attributions of his other works. In light of this, perhaps you could clarify your comments: do you disagree with these things being legitimate topics for inclusion in this article, or do you just not think the current material achieves these objectives (and if the latter, could you be more specific?)? Savidan 22:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the current material achieves its objectives. Only the first two sentences and last two sentences of the section appear to have anything to do with this article; the rest of the section appears to me to have little connection with the topic. Is there information comparing and contrasting this work with the others that he did? Is there information about what impact his previous work had on this one? There probably is useful information in this section, but the linkage between that information and the artwork in question needs to be more specifically drawn. There is also little transition between this section and the one after it - it seemed jarring to me to go from one to the other. Karanacs (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go back and look at my notes and reread the section to myself. I thought it was bad form and hurt the flow to explicitly mention the fresco in every sentence. I think that this is the bare minimum context that would be given about the author in any work of art history. Doing what you say is obviously an improvement if sources exist (which they don't necessarily; this is a medium-level obscure work), but I'm not sure that doing so should be a prerequisite to keeping what's there. But let me look at this again before we go any farther. As for the transition between the sections, do you think this would be more appropriate before the commissioning section? Savidan 01:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've rewritten the section. I hope that my rewrite of it also addresses your comment about the flow into the next section. Otherwise, my previous question still stands. Savidan 04:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a definite improvement, although I think the sentence about his life after Hawkwood is still a bit misplaced. I think for best flow this section would go between recommissioning and modifications. The Style section already begins with a great transition from Modifications. Karanacs (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I guess I concur. I'll do as you suggest. Savidan 16:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well-written and now flows better. Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, as I think your comments allude to, it is very difficult to guage and remedy generic comments, especially when they are presented along with their opposite. Could you please be more specific than "too many facts" or "not enough interpretation"? (Which facts do you find extraneous? What sourced interpretation is missing?) Your previous, more finely-tailored comments were extremely helpful. Savidan 22:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative support The prose is quite good - I didn't really find any issues. However, I'm uneasy about this because it doesn't appear to have had a peer review or exposure to relevant WikiProjects where a subject matter expert might have checked it. It could have factual errors and omissions and I wouldn't know it... I don't think I could fully support until an expert has looked at it. Misc issues:
    • "The fresco has been restored (once by Lorenzo di Credi, who added the frame)" Writing "once" implies it has been restored more than once... if so, by whom and what did they do?
    • In the Background section, you introduce the Signoria but we don't know who/what that is.
    • There are a few places where you put citations right before em dashes and it looks funny. Maybe you can find a way to use other punctuation or reword the sentence so you don't run into that. It's not a big deal, however. --Laser brain (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Laser brain. I'll leave a note at the relevant wiki-projects; in my experience, peer reviews don't result in much unless you come to them with specific issues or unless the article is a real basket case. Do you have such an expert in mind? As for the other issues raise: yes, the fresco has been restored more the once, and the other restorations are detailed in the last paragraph of the "Modifications" subsection; I've just added a link to the Signoria of Florence article; I'll look into this last part, but I think there are some places where em dashes are helpful. If it doesn't distort the references too much I'll move some of those to the end of the sentence. Savidan 01:02, 9 May 2008 (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/Funerary_Monument_to_Sir_John_Hawkwood&oldid=1138461273"