Talk:Icon of Christ and Abbot Mena

From Prof. Mc: You're off to a good start here, and overall have written the draft is clear language befitting the context on Wikipedia and have already incorporated key features such as an image and bibliography. As you dive into revisions, please consider:

Links are a key feature of Wikipedia entries and need to be added throughout. For example, in the first sentence alone you'd want to link from your entry to the Wikipedia entries on icon, Christ, Menas, Coptic (art), Louvre, Paris and France. Once your entry goes live, make sure to link from some of the key entries such as the Menas, Coptic art ones, etc. to your new entry so that people who are interested can learn from what you have to share here.
one adjustment to writing for Wikipedia is thinking about what information is specific to you entry, and what elements are covered elsewhere in Wikipedia in other entries. Whereas if you were writing a research paper on this topic, it would be great to have the blurbs on encaustic painting and Coptic History, for this entry you'd want to instead link to those entries. That said, if there is something unusual about its use of the encaustic technique you'd want to mention that. Or, if this painting has something specific to say about Coptic History or Menas, etc., then your entry is the place to state that.
a few mechanics: fixing there/their confusion, possessive/plural issue with Abbot's
the description section is overall well-written and is the heart of your entry, make sure to add your sources.
for the bibliography, remember to follow some of the standard formatting tips here for single entry bibliographies and organize the entries by author last name or year of publication.

As always, touch base if I can help in any way as you revise. AMcClanan (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)AMcClanan[reply]

Hello! I found your article to be thorough and informative, and having known little about this artwork prior to reading it, it definitely taught me about the topic and its meaning and origins. I also like that you discuss the medium that was used and the method that was utilized to create the icon. I didn’t know about Coptic art or the term Coptic and what it can encompass. I also did not know that they were the largest Christian group in that area, very interesting! I noticed quite a few statements throughout that did not carry a citation after them. I’d recommend giving it another look over and citing where you found the information you are giving (the physical description in the intro paragraph and a couple of notes in the ‘description’ category). The statement “Christ, with his arm around the abbot is introducing him to the people as he takes his place with the angels” seems like it may be an opinion, but I am not sure. Perhaps a citation would clarify if it is fact-based. Hopefully someone else chimes in regarding this  Some minor grammatical errors I noticed- In the last sentence “The pigment is than applied to a material, which is generally wood but can be applied to other materials such as canvas but has been known to be used on frescoes” the ‘than’ should be a ‘then’. In the sentence “We know that the icon is Jesus and the abbot because their is writing over each, one that states "Father Menas" and the other "Saviour"” the ‘their’ should be a ‘there’. Great draft! Pcharity (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsie's peer review[edit]

Hey nice start to what seems like will be a very interesting and informative page. First off I like how you've set your page up, with the measurements and current location of the piece first, then clearly separated you go into the historical details and facts. I'm thinking along the lines of the other you left you some feedback that there are areas that read more like an opinion (even if its not your opinion, a lot of my own research led me to papers heavily opinionated by the authors regarding things like dates and image identification) if this is the case then you'd want to cite that it is an accepted fact that the artist where representing that Christ is introducing him as he takes his place with the angels.

Other than that great job, Chelsie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1903:DD1:84A8:4C28:C75:4475 (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Decent effort, although the final section on the Copts went off the rails somewhat - St Mark did not head the church in the 6th century! The various versions of the the image were in fact used in several other articles, including the highly-viewed Medieval art, where I have now linked this - see [1]. Links & categories were not great. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dating and categories[edit]

This page is in the category "6th-century paintings"; however, it is currently dated by the Louvre to the 8th century

https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010048163 AvidReader11663 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]