# Talk:Daniel in the Lions' Den (Rubens)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sir Peter Paul Rubens - Daniel in the Lions' Den - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 26, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-09-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just done some extensive cleanup on this, to try and make the text clearer and flow better. Part of that touched on the political allegory bit - I think the article now reflects the source better, but this does make clear that the source thinks it's a political allegory based literally just on the fact that there are ten lions. I'm not an art historian, but that strikes me as extremely weak. Happy for anyone with a bit more experience to decide whether to cut that bit out entirely. statisticalphil (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the cleanup. I have add a few resource and maybe will propose it as good article in the future. Hope you can take a look at it and cleanup once again cause i am not native english speaker. Thank you Agus Damanik (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Agus, thanks for expanding it - the "Rubens & Brueghel" book looks like a good source. I've done a further copyedit on your more recent changes. Most of what I've changed was just grammar, but I did change one or two bits of your meaning to make it match the source more closely (for example, the source said that Rubens may have based the lions on two named examples, not that he definitely did - I ended up cutting that because it seemed too much like speculation). statisticalphil (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
okay. thank you Agus Damanik (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


### Daniel in the Lions' Den (Rubens)
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I plan to propose as FA and need some suggestion
Thanks, Agus Damanik (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Structurally, the article is in good shape. I found one major issue while I was reading, so I tagged it in the article—the source doesn't support the sentence it's attached to, and the tone is dramatic rather than encyclopedic. I spot checked a few more sources and nothing immediately stood out, but every source needs to line up perfectly with the information it supports. I don't see any mention in the GA review that the content of any sources was checked. If that's the case, it would mean that the article was never checked for original research or copyright violations. So that will need to be checked before any FAC nomination. Most of the GA review related to wikilinks and minor style changes, which are not part of the requirements for good articles. Courtesy ping for reviewer Amitchell125 since we're discussing the review.I've made a few other minor copyedits myself. If you want to take it to FA, it needs to be a comprehensive overview of the sourcing, so I did a quick search to see if I could find more. I came up with an older one: Farina, Pasquale. Daniel in the lions' den. 1924. I haven't read it in detail, but it might be helpful. If you haven't, I also suggest going into the Wikipedia Library and checking every relevant collection one at a time. I've also added this peer review to Template:FAC peer review sidebar so it can get more feedback. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Got another source to explain it. The one you give me so hard to navigate Agus Damanik (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Agus Damanik; two main things jump out. First the language is sometimes tonally at odds with the usual wiki voice, or veers towards "in universe", eg from the lead "Daniel miraculously survived". Secondly, the references style; can you change the refs to journal articles and books from full inline citations to a format where they are listed in a "sources" section, and only specific pages are inline as eg here.  The article seems in good condition and well researched, first impression is that its mostly lacking in "polish", Im assuming (for now) that you looked up the additional sources identified in the FAC nom and so the page is doable re an eventual second nomination. ps, I never really "got" Rubens, though he is obviously important, so am keen to learn more :) Ceoil (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The source formatting is extremely inconsistent -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Heroically inconsistent even :) Ceoil (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)