# Talk:A Vision of the Last Judgement

I added some wikilinks, I think the article needed some more; I also changed some language to make things clearer
The article could perhaps use some image of William Blake - why not one of the less often used ones, like File:WilliamBlake-portert-pSC1808.jpeg?
Why not consider using the viewer's right and left view with regard to Jesus - it's midly confusing as it is now imo
"... removes the traditional hiding apocalyptic imagery's representation components" is unclear
"in the centre is the book of death. At the top is the book of life, and the Christian Church is the figure of a woman on top of the moon" - could that me made more clear, just from reading it and looking at the HQ picture I can't tell where each of these things is
what does "In terms of the basis of the painting" mean? Is "the basis" the reason why he painted it?
"apocalypse within the human experience" does that mean in his lifetime? it's vague
which David Hartley is it? that should be linked
the Jerusalem by Blake should be linked - is it the book or the hymn?
I think there is only ever one apocalypse, so it should be "an apocalypse" instead of "the apocalypse", or not?
"having to confront error" - probably means one's own errors, should be clarified
"dismissed the idea of allegory except" doesn't that nead a comma or how is it meant?
"Blake's understanding of time is similar to the way Samuel Taylor Coleridge the understanding of time and the state of limbo within his poem 'Limbo'." the grammar is wrong in this sentence and needs to be corrected
Hekerui (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The right and the left are based on the specific wordings of Blake himself. they are symbollic in Blake's mind, and he is focused on the perspective of Jesus within the letter. By the way, this isn't a GA review. :P If you want, I can nominate it for GA after expanding it more. That way, you can perform a real review of it. :) I made some fixes, by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry you had to "deal with this". Happy editing. Hekerui (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to arguing over a minor point that was unnecessary. I added the link and just accepted it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about any public reaction at the time (or private reactions), theories, police involvement, etc.  One might get the impression that nobody really cared, in which case, why is there a Wikipedia article on it now?  --71.162.91.154 (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it is notable. Paintings disappear. There is no reaction to it. Blake was ignored for the most part while he was alive. It wasn't until the 60s that he became a major figure. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Vision of the Last Judgment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: NW (Talk) 16:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


### Well written
#### Lead
"A Vision of the Last Judgment is a painting by William Blake that was designed in 1808 before becoming a lost artwork."
I'm a little confused here. Was the painting ever actually painted, or was a plan etched out? If the latter, why is it considered a lost artwork?
"Earlier designs for the painting that depicted the Last Judgment survived."
Would "have survived" be better? In addition, this sentence is a bit repetitive with the second sentence of the second paragraph of the lead.
"Like Blake's notes on the painting, a letter written to Ozias Humphry provides..."
→"In addition to Blake's notes on the painting, [a/his] letter written to Ozias Humphry provides". Would that be better?
I feel that the lead might be able to be expanded a bit. The sections titled "Painting" and "Themes" have very little representation in the lead. NW (Talk) 17:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


#### Origins
"Blake claimed to see visions and said he believed they were a common aspect of life and compared them to what biblical prophets experienced."
That's a run-on sentence.
"In the commentary to A Vision of the Last Judgment, Blake said he was able to see the host of Heaven praising God. The design was created in 1808 as an expansion of his 1805 work The Day of Judgment."
It might just be me, but I feel these two sentences don't flow together very well. Perhaps you could split the paragraphs, and then add a sentence to each?
"These include an 1808 watercolour version made for Elizabeth Ilive, wife of George Wyndham, 3rd Earl of Egremont, that was displayed at their home Petworth House"
"These include an 1808 watercolour version made for Elizabeth Ilive, wife of George Wyndham, 3rd Earl of Egremont, that was displayed at their home Petworth House
Other editions included watercolours made for Thomas Butts in 1806, 1807, and 1809; one for John Flaxman in 1806 (lost), and an 1809 unsold version in tempera.
Appropriate use of the semicolon? I admit to not knowing fully, so I shall defer to your judgment.
General comment: Does The Grave have an article?
"The painting was to be discussed in Blake's Descriptive Catalogue, a work that, in 1809, described Blake's feelings about various painters and poets along with descriptions of his own works and their various meanings."
"The painting was to be discussed in Blake's Descriptive Catalogue, a 1809 work that described Blake's feelings about various painters and poets and also provided descriptions of his own works and their various meanings."?
"Notes for what Blake planned to write for the works A Vision of the Last Judgment and Public Address survived. The notes were discovered by William Michael Rossetti and first mentioned in a letter to Horace Scudder on 27 November 1864."
→"Notes for what Blake planned to write for the works A Vision of the Last Judgment and Public Address survived and were discovered by William Michael Rossetti, who first mentioned in a letter to Horace Scudder on 27 November 1864."?
"One piece of the work was missing: part of page 71 was sent by Rossetti to Scudder"
→"One piece of the work was missing: part of page 71, which was sent by Rossetti to Scudder"?


#### Painting
"The description provided by Blake to Humphrey, explains that the work depicts the resurrection."
Unneeded comma?
"...and in the centre is the book of death"
Should book of death be capitalized? Also, can it be linked if possible?
"To Blake, he must create an image of the Last Judgment, then represent the image, and then described with a written gloss of the work. This creates a layer of representation that separates the audience from the apocalyptic experience, which undermines the apocalypse itself."
Describe instead of described, I should think. Also, I have no idea what the latter sentence means; could you please clarify?


#### Themes
"This idea is connected to views of David Hartley of the "pure disinterested love of God", and this idea of transformation appears in other works by Blake, including his Jerusalem."
"This idea is connected to views of David Hartley of the "pure disinterested love of God", and appears in other works by Blake, including his Jerusalem."
Is Jerusalem linkable?
" Blake dismissed the idea of allegory except, as he wrote in an letter to Butts, 6 July 1803, "Allegory Address'd to the intellectual powers, while it is altogether hidden from the Corporeal Understanding, is My Definition of the Most Sublime Poetry""
Could you add a sentence of explanation of what that means?
"Blake's understanding of time is similar..."
I'm not sure if understanding is the best word to use here, perhaps "interpretation" or other synonym would work better?


### Factually accurate and verifiable
Yep. NW (Talk) 17:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


### Broad in its coverage
Yep. NW (Talk) 17:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


### Neutral
Yep. NW (Talk) 17:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


### Stable
It's stable. NW (Talk) 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


### Images
Both look fine. NW (Talk) 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


### End result
So, it should quite definitely be passable if the few points I raised above are attended to. NW (Talk) 17:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I made a whole series of changes. I went through each and adopted most of your suggestions. I rewrote the lead and four sentences that you had problems with above. As for the Blake quote, there is no real explanation because Blake was vague on the matter and I have not yet seen an interpretation that could help explain it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks good them. I'm going to go ahead and pass the article. NW (Talk) 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm work at the spanish version of this article, and I can't found the meaning of the word 'Los' at the next sentence:
"The figure of time appears in other works by Blake, including as the figure Los and in the illustration Blake made for Edward Young's Night Thoughts.".
Can somebody help me?
(Sorry for the bad english) --Giliofelix (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)