Talk:In Memory of Theo Faiss

Content and prose review

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

• At first glance, it seems well written and well researched but a bit overly detailed in the Background section.
• Lead: will comment later whether it is an appropriate summary.
• Steiner frequently invoked Faiss's death as a voluntary sacrifice that enveloped the Goetheanum with a protective spiritual sheath. perhaps you can stress a bit more that "voluntary sacrifice" and "protective spiritual sheath" is Steiner's interpretations, not encyclopaedic facts.

• This is a good point, and (as a general matter) something that I've tied to be very conscious of when writing the article. In particular, I've tried to put the anthroposophic interpretations into their voices rather than Wikipedia voice. Here, I've rephrased to Steiner frequently invoked Faiss's death, terming it a voluntary sacrifice ... to emphasize that that was his own interpretation. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• two versions of the relief, which are seen in bronze and plaster just to clarify: do you mean to say that both versions exist in bronze and in plaster?

• The sources aren't clear on this. The second version definitely exists in both; Raab discusses the bronze, and we have a photo of the plaster. The first definitely exists in plaster, as (a) Raab discusses how it was (re)made, and (b) we have photos of it. But I haven't been able to find something that expressly states that the first version was also made in bronze. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Background: the content about Maryon is longer and more detailed than that at Edith Maryon, which I think is not a good arrangement. Her family and details of her education really are not that relevant to the artwork here. The exact dates of her meetings with Steiner and her trips to Dornach should in my view all rather be put into her biography. Better to have just one or two paragraphs on the artist here and a more satisfying biography for those who click the link to Edith Maryon than so much detail here.

• Cut this down substantially so that it's now two short paragraphs. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Similarly, there is too much detail about Theo Faiss here. The names of his siblings or the various places where his family lived are just a distraction to readers interested in the artwork (and that is what the article should be about).

• This is also now substantially cut down, with the full bio removed to the new article on Theo Faiss. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• I am less concerned about the length of the "Significance" section, but I am a bit concerned about the significance: in this article, it reads as if this was spiritually a truly important event for Steiner and the Goetheanum, but the episode is not even mentioned in either of the Rudolf Steiner or Goetheanum articles.

• I think that's more an issue about the state of the articles on Steiner and the Goetheanum than on the importance of Faiss. After all, the article on Steiner barely mentions Maryon, one of his closest collaborators; the article on Maryon (as you observed) is less developed that her bio in this one was; and the article on the Goetheanum includes only three paragraphs on the first building. In well-developed articles on Steiner and the Goetheanum, Faiss would certainly be mentioned—perhaps not as an entire section, but at least as a paragraph or two in each. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Accident: Käthe Knetsch, who worked on the Goetheanum—had unharnessed the horses, then walked to Basel I don't fully understand. Did she unharness the horses, then walk to Basel, and then the wagon overturned and his Faiss? Or did her wagon overturn and kill Faiss, and instead of trying to seek help, she fled to Basel?

• This is no longer in this article, although it's an interesting question. I had originally understood it to be that the driver (who, looking at the source again, wasn't necessarily Knetsch—it was her furniture, but someone else appears to have been driving) had left the wagon unattended and then the accident happened, although another source suggests that the wagon overturned, the driver figured he couldn't right it that night, and he headed off to Basel. The source doesn't state that he knew there was a child underneath his wagon when he headed off, but it leaves some questions unresolved. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

More later! —Kusma (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

• The story of Albert Faiss, while tragic, is not relevant enough to be told in such detail (for example, collecting the father's coffin on Christmas eve has no connection to the artwork that I can see).

• This is now removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Significance: I don't quite see the point of extensively quoting Steiner in both German and English here. I would probably lose all of the German quotes except for the mantram. If you want to include the quotes for verifiability, you could consider moving the German to the citation.

• These are now removed to footnotes (other than the mantram). The guideline on citing sources does say that In the case of non-English sources, it may be helpful to quote from the original text and then give an English translation. If the article itself contains a translation of a quote from such a source (without the original), then the original should be included in the footnote. The guideline takes this from the verifiability policy, which states that The original text is usually included with the translated text in articles when translated by Wikipedians. Not all the text here is a machine/Wikipedian translation (although sometimes there are multiple published translation, so there is some discretion in which to use), but there are enough quotations that it helps with overall verifiability. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• If you do quote in German, "erschütternde Ereignis" would be better than "erschütternden Ereignis" to fit with the overall grammar of the sentence.

• The original source (page 101) actually says erschütternden Ereignis. Is something off here? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, the original says "In einem erschütternden Ereignis", "in a shocking event". "In" is a preposition that goes with dative case in German (unless it is directional, then it uses accusative case). You change this to "the shocking event", which translated back to German would necessitate changing the grammar to nominative case "ein erschütterndes Ereignis" or "das erschütternde Ereignis" (depending on whether you choose indefinite or definite article) to avoid sounding off. Adjective declensions in German are weird (in the words of MArk Twain, "When a German gets his hands on an adjective, he declines it, and keeps on declining it until the common sense is all declined out of it." So anyway, this is a minor grammatical point; German speakers would always prefer changing the words used in a quotation to a situation where they end up with incompatible grammar. As this is now a footnote, I don't care so much anymore. —Kusma (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You're well above my level in terms of translation (and German grammar); I'm extremely reluctant to change quoted text without an indication (e.g., brackets), but is there any way you would suggest changing the structure of the text to make it flow correctly? --Usernameunique (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Description: are you describing the bronze or the plaster?

• Both, as the design is the same regardless of the medium. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• still in physical form why "still"? We do not at this point expect him to change form

• Changed to in physical rather than spiritual form. It's to distinguish this figure from the other image of Faiss in this version of the relief, which depicts him in spiritual (not physical) form. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

More tomorrow! —Kusma (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Themes: does the sculpture of the father really imply these exact words? (Apparently we don't even know it is the father). I would much prefer a paraphrase to another two-languages quote.

• They do to Raab; this paragraph is about his interpretation rather than objective fact. You're right, though, that the quotation doesn't really add much. I've rephrased to His father clasps his arms as if in prayer, meanwhile, as if submitting himself to God's will. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• The section seems to be very much concerned with the first version (the one that is not represented by an image in the article). Is there more to say about the second version, or is there a way to add a picture of the first version (or at least a suitable external link to one)?

• Unfortunately there isn't much more about the second version. Raab treats it as a (literal) afterthought; as he says, he had written the chapter about Faiss and the work before discovering the second version. He should probably have done more to integrate it into the chapter (e.g., he spends a fair amount of time talking about how the first version being not precisely 2:1 dimensions was intentional, but that makes a lot less sense when the second version was exactly 2:1), but did not. Then, the works after Raab that discuss the work don't even mention the second version.

As for the photo, I've sent some emails asking if people might license photos of the first version, but haven't yet had any responses. I'll try again, and if that doesn't work add a non-free (fair-use) image. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Worst case you could mention that there is a photo in von Halle 2011c. —Kusma (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• That the Goetheanum burned down after the ethereal protection expired could be stated more prominently, I think. But really, if this story is important in Goetheanum lore, it should be mentioned in Goetheanum.

• It's a rather inconvenient fact given all the talk about the "sacrifice", isn't it. I've added a section on the fire to Faiss's background section, and moved (from "Themes") the justifications for why the fire isn't inconsistent with Steiner's claims. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Provenance: was the discovery by Estermann also in 1965? It is not quite clear the way it is written.

• The source doesn't say. All it says about Estermann is that (as translated) Edith Maryon's work almost disappeared from posterity. Thirteen dusty plaster fragments lay not far from the carpentry workshop, a seemingly irretrievable pile of shards, which, however, would prove to be Maryon's work. John Wilkes took possession of the fragments from the finder, Emil Estermann—and saved them nonetheless! Under his skillful hands, the sculpture was reborn as he carefully pieced the individual fragments together, so that the breaks are barely discernible in the resulting cast. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Are any copies of either version on display anywhere? Do we know anything about their current whereabouts?

• Unfortunately little that is in secondary sources. According to Instagram, there is a plaster version of the first version in Dornach. Raab 1993 also speaks about the bronze copy of version 2 in the Netherlands, but there's no subsequent word on its location. And we have a photo of version 2 in plaster, but again no secondary source about its location. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

We do have the primary source of the photo of the back of the plaster of the second version, which states that it is in the Goetheanum's art collection. Is that not accurate? —Kusma (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Lead seems to be a reasonable summary of the article, although I would wish for slightly more encyclopaedic distance from the various esoteric beliefs presented.

Overall the article reads a little like it was written not for Wikipedia, but for a more academic audience. The full biographies of Maryon and Faiss would be appropriate in a short scholarly article or in a thesis about Maryon's work to make it self-contained (and to present additional background research into these people), but they do not seem relevant enough to take up so much space here. Similarly, the use of lengthy quotations from almost everything, while perfectly fine in a scholarly setting where they serve as justifications for the argument, seem out of place in an encyclopaedia article (and more so all of the quotes that are not directly connected to the artwork). I think there is some re-working necessary to turn this piece into something that is clearly an article on the artwork, not about what Steiner thought about the death of this young boy. I will now do spot checks and comment about the GA criteria. —Kusma (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Kusma. I'll get to work on these shortly. Note that I’m going to split the Theo Faiss section into its own article, which (along with reductions to the Maryon section) will shorten the background considerably. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Sure, let me know when you want me to take another look. Thank you for agreeing to split out some content. —Kusma (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for the detailed and thoughtful review, Kusma. I believe I've now addressed all the points you've raised. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks much better now. While I still think that in an ideal article, the focus should be slightly more on the art, we are well within GA territory now. I think moving the German to footnotes was the right call: you still have the additional verifiability via original language, but the readability is much improved. I will pass this now and leave you to consider or ignore my inline comments as you please. —Kusma (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Source spotchecks

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1339753331.

• Random numbers 4 30 41 56 62 81 87 88 94 102 109 112.
• 4: fine
• 30: fine, although this is a German translation. If the other citations contain the original, this one doesn't add much.
• 41: looks fine
• 56: could not access
• 62: ok
• 81: ok
• 87: I can't see the original pagination, but from the way it is arranged on archive.org I assume this is pp. 140–141, not 141–142.

• The page numbering for these works is annoying, but you can figure it out by looking at the TOC (which gives the page number on which each lecture starts), and then counting pages off that. Here, archive.org appears to be off by one; 141–142 is correct. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Footnote 4 is quite massive, but mostly just refers to the primary sources. What are the best secondary sources about the influence of the Faiss episode on Steiner?

• Raab 1993 has a chapter on Faiss and the memorial. Selg 2008/2011 discusses Faiss in depth, and there's a biographical journal article on Faiss (Bos 1993) which I've now added to the article. (Bos apparently wrote two other articles on Faiss, as you can see here, although they've been stubbornly difficult to find. Even Bos 1993 took months.) Each of these sources notes Faiss's influence on Steiner, and points to the many lectures in which Steiner mentioned Faiss. The first lines of Bos 1993, meanwhile, are (as translated) The name Theo Faiss is indelibly linked to the construction of the first Goetheanum. Most readers of this magazine will be familiar with the connections. Raab does note that more attention could have been paid to Faiss, although Raab treats this as an odd oversight (as translated, Strangely enough, none of the reference works - apart from Christoph Lindenberg's chronicle and the catalog raisonné - mention Theo Faiss' life sacrifice, which was so important for the construction in spiritual terms.) --17:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• 109/113: looks ok from snippet view

Spot checks look fine, no evidence of uncited material or close paraphrasing. —Kusma (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

General comments and GA criteria

• Prose is generally fine, a few requests for clarification above.
• No major MoS issues.
• References nicely formatted, from sources that are reliable in context (as long as the more esoteric content is used with clear attribution and not in wikivoice).
• Spot check revealed no issues with OR or CLOP.
• Broadness: slightly more on the artwork itself would be nice (techniques, current locations) if any such content is available; it is currently overwhelmed by content not about the artwork.

• The balance should be addressed by the removal of much of the background. Unfortunately there's little discussion of the artistic merits of the reliefs; it's almost all about their relation to Faiss. And as noted above, the secondary sources give us little information about the current locations. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Focus: Currently too much of the "background" is not relevant to the artwork.

• Addressed as discussed above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Neutrality: The content about the artwork is fine, but I would like some reassurance that the importance of the event for Steiner is not overstated here.

• Ditto. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Stable single author article
• Images:
  • File:In Memory of Theo Faiss by Edith Maryon.jpg is fine assuming you had the right to take the photograph (the artwork itself is PD as Maryon died over 100 years ago)
  • File:Edith Maryon.jpg why is this PD?
    • Good question. It was presumably taken in Dornach (indeed, it seems to be derived from this photo in the Goetheanum's collection), in which case it would have been taken between 1914 and 1924. I would guess that whoever uploaded it (Rembertbiemond) was working on the theory that it was published at that time too, and has thus lapsed into the public domain. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • File:Dance of Anitra by Edith Maryon - Dreweatts 1.jpg: copyright is OK, but the caption could use some work. "The Dance of Anitra (1909), termed by Raab a fifth-category work": no mention of the artist, no obvious connection to the article and no indication what "fifth-category" means. Is the fifth category good or bad?
    • Her five stylistic categories were discussed when her bio was longer, but I've now removed both that and the photo. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  In GA reviews I tend not to dig too deeply, but if you ever want to go for FAC with anything Maryon related, you will need to figure this out. —Kusma (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Steiner drawing looks PD to me
  • File:In Memory of Theo Faiss by Edith Maryon - back.jpg: we don't really learn much from this, but it is fine to have here.

Done reviewing. A nice little article, but some of the detail needs cutting or moving elsewhere. —Kusma (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed