Talk:David (Bernini)

Interwiki links are erroneously pointing to Bernini in other languages, rather than Bernini's David. I fixed the he link, but all others are still incorrect.

I'm removing a NEUTRALITY DISPUTED tag because

Avery and Finn in their book Bernini call his David "a radical interpretation of his subject" while Wittkower, in his book on Bernini points out that in his Pluto Abducting Proserpina [Bernini's last work prior to doing this David] that Bernini, "rid his style of the last vestiges of Mannerism." Post, in his two volume history of sculpture, also points to the David,and writes that it [ and the concurrent Apollo and Daphne ] "exhibits a technical dexterity rarely, if ever. equaled, in the world's history." This all seems to support the claim made in the article that the piece was "revolutionary" and so I am removing the "neutrality disputed" tag. Carptrash 17:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Oh yes, I guess that I should add these references to the article - though they were not party to it's writing.

I had athe time of this posting added sources to back up this statment. Someone has since removed them. So.. i'm about to add them back as sources rather then additional reading. Carptrash 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

I would say a few things (some substantial, some cosmetic) stand in the way of this article being a GA.

1. As always, but particularly here, more sources are needed IMO. With something as interpretive and subjective as art, I would be more comfortable promoting this article if the opinions, criticisms, and interpretations presented here were substantiated by a wider variety of sources.
2. The gallery in the middle of the article is unnecessary and awkward. Wikipedia discourages the use of a gallery, and here it disrupts the flow of the article and does not do a good job of illustration for the reader. Key images can be incorporated into the main body—I would suggest in particular the Verocchio and the Michelangelo (before and after). Everything else can be linked to.
3. More illustrations: the other sections need a couple of pictures too.
4. Organization: it seems to me that the subject matter section is too short to merit its own section. Could we merge "Styles and Composition" into it, and place the whole thing before "Influences"? Some sort of logical reorganization seems to be in order.

--Malachirality (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep this article on hold for up to a week. If there isn't a response and/or significant progress by that time, I will fail it. The most important concern is a logical, neat, flow of information:

1. What are the circumstances of its creation? ("Background" does a good job of this).
2. What does it depict (dimensions should also be included)? Biblical David, robes, stone, lyre, armor. Here would also be a good place to put the information about implied motion, incorporating surroundings, involving the viewer, etc. Essentially, this section needs to describe the physical work completely, including everything unique that distinguishes this work: composition, details, style, techniques, emotions, etc.
3. Influences and contemporary works, etc.

Well what does this:

I will fail it.

even mean? if you know what is wrong with it, fix it. Carptrash (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It means I am the reviewer, and it is up to the nominator or other major editors of the article to make the changes, or to show that progress at least is being made toward those changes. There is significant researching and rewriting to be done here (not to mention finding a lead image), which I cannot contribute as an uninvolved reviewer. If it was only typos and grammar and punctuation problems, I would fix them myself at the end of the seven days. As it stands, there is significant reorganization and content that is lacking, which I don't touch as a reviewer. I felt this article fell short of at least two important criteria (prose and coverage), and expressed those concerns here. I expected some sort of response to the review I posted--either here, on my talk page, in actual edits of the article--and when this response did not materialize, I assumed that there was not an editor committed to bring this article up to standards. Expecting the GAN reviewer to unilaterally make all changes necessary to bring articles up to GA standards is both unreasonable and a COI. It is entirely within GA procedure to fail an on hold article if there is no activity in seven days. However, if you take issue to this instance, feel free to bring it up for Reassessment. --Malachirality (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AHhhhh. I get it. Well far be it from me to suggest changes in the wikipedia caste system. I shot a slide of David at the Villa Borgase (or where ever) decades ago, but have had so many of my pictures removed on copyright objections (there is another wikicaste that patrols that area) that I am not inclined to post any more. As for Reassessment . . . . . .... and get sucked even deeper into a wiki-bureaucratic tar baby just to try and maintain my version of what wikipedia should be? I don't think so. Have at it. Carptrash (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I made small fixes to this article, felt it fell short of GA standards, left a review here, notified the nominator (was I supposed to notify you, with 3 edits 1.5 years ago?) and significant editor, and got no response and no improvement. Yeah, GAN and the featured stuff is naturally a bit bureaucratic, but that is only one facet of wikipedia. There are many different roles one can take on in a place as big as wikipedia, and I do; I contribute content in articles that I'm not reviewing, and I copyedit for people, among other "constructive" activities. If you don't like the way GA works, why not just find a part of the project that you do like? The copyright stuff and the need for sources is essential to maintain the legitimacy and credibility of something as big as wikipedia. On the whole, though, I'd say editing and contributing content is still pretty open and unbureaucratic. And is it really a caste if people come and go between any (or many) of them as they please? --Malachirality (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)