This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rosalia (festival) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from Rosalia (festival) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 June 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Congratulations on an interesting DYK!
However, I want to comment less positively on the use of illustrations. There are quite a number of images here drawn from the 17th to 19th centuries. In every case where the modern picture has been used to illustrate the ancient context, it is of far less value than the Ancient depictions of the same event, and, despite being appropriately captioned, may confuse rather than inform the reader, because in every case the artistic notion is bound to be an inaccurate one.
My suggestion is that a section is devoted to representations of Rosalia in art and that the group of pictures is placed there. (I am not referring to those that deal with the continuing Marian tradition.) As an art historian, I see one of the aspects of any work of art as being a primary source of history, for the period to which it dates. Hence an imaginative, illustrative and romanticised 19th century painting is a primary source to the 19th century, and shouldn't be used as a primary source to an ancient culture, regardless of what it depicts, and regardless of how beautiful it is. The only reason for drawing such a source as illustrative material for an encyclopedic article would be that there is no other depiction. In this case, there are a number of relevant pics.
Amandajm ( talk) 06:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rosalia (festival) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from Rosalia (festival) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 June 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Congratulations on an interesting DYK!
However, I want to comment less positively on the use of illustrations. There are quite a number of images here drawn from the 17th to 19th centuries. In every case where the modern picture has been used to illustrate the ancient context, it is of far less value than the Ancient depictions of the same event, and, despite being appropriately captioned, may confuse rather than inform the reader, because in every case the artistic notion is bound to be an inaccurate one.
My suggestion is that a section is devoted to representations of Rosalia in art and that the group of pictures is placed there. (I am not referring to those that deal with the continuing Marian tradition.) As an art historian, I see one of the aspects of any work of art as being a primary source of history, for the period to which it dates. Hence an imaginative, illustrative and romanticised 19th century painting is a primary source to the 19th century, and shouldn't be used as a primary source to an ancient culture, regardless of what it depicts, and regardless of how beautiful it is. The only reason for drawing such a source as illustrative material for an encyclopedic article would be that there is no other depiction. In this case, there are a number of relevant pics.
Amandajm ( talk) 06:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)