Talk:Fragment of a Crucifixion

	Fragment of a Crucifixion is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 24, 2018.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 27, 2017 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 2, 2017 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 6, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Francis Bacon's painting Fragment of a Crucifixion shows two dying animals in a scene influenced by the biblical Crucifixion and Aeschylus' The Oresteia?
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Two owls. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're talking! .micro.dot.cotton (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this? Hugo Davis? Hugh Davis? I never heard of any of them...Modernist (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O Christ, I need a spell checker. Hugh Davies; he's a curator in San Diego[1] and over saw a major Bacon retrospective in the late 1990s. I know him for various exhibition catelogs only. Ceoil (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, Davies name wouldn't show up on spell check anyway, just keep on keepin' on...Modernist (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carnt spell, I know. Thanks Modernist, thats what just what I'll do. Ceoil (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's a friend of the von Baldasses. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Har, you scoundrel-Outriggr would be proud of that quip. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading the article, I see this "Work" section, which starts with some description of the painting (which started in the second paragraph of the lead?), then has a "background paragraph", then some "thematic linkages", and then some "Imagery", although your next section is also "Imagery". So "Work" could give birth to more sections ("Theme", "Background", and "Work" itself focused on description or just one section named "Work" with more sub-sections).
• So, "Work" could have some restructuring and re-ordering, and some re-negotiating of its relations with the lead which is full of description just like the beginning of the "Work" section. And I am not sure that the lead is comprehensively summarizing the article, focusing most on the description, and less on inspiration, theme, imagery etc. which cover most of the article. In general, I think "Work" is the key for the whole article's structure. You have to answer to a tough question: What exactly do you want to do with it?!
• "The Open Mouth": So, is it inspired not only from Rebrandt and Rubens, but from the film as well? Again, you could put this info together under the main heading. And although you give to the sub-section the title "scream" you mainly speak about an "open mouth"!
• The article ends a bit briskly (is it the right word?). I expect something more for a smoother end, but, to be honest, I do not know exactly what. Maybe some reception or aftermath (maybe the info that Bacon later disliked the painting could be here among other info of course) or ... I don't know! I have to think about it tomorrow after sleeping a bit! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments prepared for FAC

I prepared this as a review.

• "Although the title has religious connotations, Bacon's outlook was bleak, he was an atheist and did not believe in either divine intervention nor an afterlife. " the comma after bleak should be a semi-colon.
• "who is" I might say "a being" to eliminate the who/which thing.
• I remember reviewing the screaming Popes, but is there a useful link you can supply here?
• First image caption "Bacon's this"
• The body of the article seems to begin somewhat in media res. This seems a bit odd.
• "The painting has been linked both thematically and its formal construction" there should be an "in" before "its".
• "and less and less of his canvases contained the sensational imagery" likely "fewer" is meant for less. I would avoid the repetition though.
• "Bacon found it more powerful to reflect violence in his brush strokes and colourisation, not literally, and not "in the thing portrayed".[6]" I might substitute "rather then" for "not literally, and not".
• "including a number of pieces that had that were held in high regard by critics and buyers." some issue with the "that had that".
• "unaffected and uninterested in" maybe "oblivious to" or "unaware of"?
• "Odessa Steps" is there no article on the steps themselves? (I'm doing this offline)
• "Crucifixion scenes can be found in Bacon's earliest works,[18] and weights heavily throughout his career." It may be an ENGVAR thing, but shouldn't it be "weigh"?
• Does Russell really need re-introduction?
• The caption under crucifixion is not a complete sentence and should not have a period.
• " Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn" or, simply, Rembrandt.
• "as the armature of the theme had been accumulated by so many old masters." accumulated?
• "The legs folded out of view and the left arm passively by Rubens are transposed by Bacon into violent motion, flopping wildly up and down."[24]" First, there is a stray quote at the end. Second, there seems to be a verb missing to apply to the arm. Third, is "flapping" rather than "flopping" meant?

• "In this painting he hints at their form as triangles in works such as the 1970 Three Studies of the Male Back." Is there some text missing after "triangles" that better joins the two works?

• I have an issue with the Eichmann matter. It is presented in the lede as one of Bacon's sources, but Eichmann's trial was in 1961, and there doesn't seem to be a real connection here. Thus, the source matter is not backed up in the body. Neither is the screaming Popes reference in the lede.
• I'm not an expert in art, but I'm not sure this has as much cohesion as I would like to see. It may be just me.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I think you are experienced enough in reviewing art articles at this stage to recognise when they arnt good enough. Especially your latter points. I intend to return this to FAC when it is more coherent. This review is most helpful and have begun to address. Many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why define the painting as the work of an Irish-born painter if the painter himself is defined in his biography as an Irish-born British painter? Does the painting have a special relation to Ireland? Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Eisenstein Potemkin 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]