Talk:The End of the World (painting)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The End of the World (painting) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: December 15, 2007 |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | Class: This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
A fact from The End of the World (painting) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on August 10, 2007. |
 |
[edit] I'd like to remove the 'Notes' section
As Higher Criticism is tending towards the aHistoricity of Exodus, talk of which Pharaoh was involved is begging the question. At least we could just forward to the wiki on the Exodus in the notes instead of making such a bold statement... Audubon 10:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you are referring to this, then I can't see anything bold about suggesting that it may have been Ramses. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA
Fail Sorry, but the article needs a good deal more than views of what the subject is (not quite as contradictory as the article implies). There's nothing about Martin & his other work, or the history of ownership, etc. Ideally a broader view of the historical context. Was in in the Royal Academy show? What was the contemporary critical reaction? Some of the language is clunky, & it is underlinked. I think it needs a bit too much work to put on hold. I can't get the review template to work, or I'd add more, but I'm essential failing on thin content. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Johnbod for the review. I'll try to find more information. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- In reply to your query, I've edited the first section for style and links. This link from the Tate already gives more information about the picture in about 200 words that your article doesn't cover - it one of a series of three, which you don't mention. The engraving is not the painting, it is a print of it - when was the painting done, & who bought it? I'm even wondering if Carey is talking about the same picture - there are other Martin images of Old Testament destructions, & neither of the titles would make obvious sense for the depiction of an OT event, which very clearly is not the end of the world. Beyond that, I think you need to look at other GA's on paintings & see the kind of coverage they give. The trouble is currently, if you remove the question of what the painting actually depicts (which of course is not usually an issue at all) there is only a very short stub left. Hope that helps! Johnbod (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks very much Johnbod. I think I have a better idea now. The reason Carey talks about Babylon, as mentioned in the last section of the article, is that John Martin's underlying theme was the perceived connection between the rapid growth of London as a metropolis in the early nineteenth century, and the original growth of the Babylon civilization and its final destruction. The destruction of Babylon is therefore prefiguring the final destruction of London as a metropolis. Thanks again for the review --Be happy!! (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- In reply to your query, I've edited the first section for style and links. This link from the Tate already gives more information about the picture in about 200 words that your article doesn't cover - it one of a series of three, which you don't mention. The engraving is not the painting, it is a print of it - when was the painting done, & who bought it? I'm even wondering if Carey is talking about the same picture - there are other Martin images of Old Testament destructions, & neither of the titles would make obvious sense for the depiction of an OT event, which very clearly is not the end of the world. Beyond that, I think you need to look at other GA's on paintings & see the kind of coverage they give. The trouble is currently, if you remove the question of what the painting actually depicts (which of course is not usually an issue at all) there is only a very short stub left. Hope that helps! Johnbod (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
