Talk:The Great Day of His Wrath

message: As Higher Criticism is tending towards the aHistoricity of Exodus, talk of which Pharaoh was involved is begging the question. At least we could just forward to the wiki on the Exodus in the notes instead of making such a bold statement... Audubon 10:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to this, then I can't see anything bold about suggesting that it may have been Ramses. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like to remove the 'Notes' section 

message: Fail  Sorry, but the article needs a good deal more than views of what the subject is (not quite as contradictory as the article implies).  There's nothing about Martin & his other work, or the history of ownership, etc. Ideally a broader view of the historical context. Was in in the Royal Academy show? What was the contemporary critical reaction?  Some of the language is clunky, & it is underlinked. I think it needs a bit too much work to put on hold. I can't get the review template to work, or I'd add more, but I'm essential failing on thin content.  Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Johnbod for the review. I'll try to find more information. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reply to your query, I've edited the first section for style and links. This link from the Tate already gives more information about the picture in about 200 words that your article doesn't cover - it one of a series of three, which you don't mention. The engraving is not the painting, it is a print of it - when was the painting done, & who bought it? I'm even wondering if Carey is talking about the same picture - there are other Martin images of Old Testament destructions, & neither of the titles would make obvious sense for the depiction of an OT event, which very clearly is not the end of the world. Beyond that, I think you need to look at other GA's on paintings & see the kind of coverage they give.  The trouble is currently, if you remove the question of what the painting actually depicts (which of course is not usually an issue at all) there is only a very short stub left.  Hope that helps! Johnbod (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much Johnbod. I think I have a better idea now. The reason Carey talks about Babylon, as mentioned in the last section of the article, is that John Martin's underlying theme was the perceived connection between the rapid growth of London as a metropolis in the early nineteenth century, and the original growth of the Babylon civilization and its final destruction. The destruction of Babylon is therefore prefiguring the final destruction of London as a metropolis. Thanks again for the review --Be happy!! (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:John Martin - The Great Day of His Wrath - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 3, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-09-03. 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) 02:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:John Martin - The Great Day of His Wrath - Google Art Project.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon