Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2017 [1].

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoriaearle

Painting about old age and aging by Jan van Eyck dated to c. 1434-36. Its great for several reasons, most of all because of how van der Paele, a significant operator in early 15th century Bruges, allows himself to be depicted without any regard to vanity, at all. Alas, Victoria is retired and will not be active on this FAC, so I'll have to do instead. Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review All images seem to be properly used and in proper format, with the following issues:

Ok. Have added licencing to the first, and replaced the second. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have swapped out this now. Ceoil (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching you work through. Appreciate the edits and support very much. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

This is an interesting article, nicely illustrated. I bring no special knowledge of the subject to this review, but I'm able to comment on the prose, the logic, and questions related to the Manual of Style. Overall, the article reads well and has very few problems that I can detect. I made a few minor edits, mostly substituting en dashes for hyphens in page ranges. Here are my other thoughts:
General
  • Images need alt text.
  • When I read these alt texts, I try to imagine what they would mean to me if I were blind. Some seem helpful; "Representation of Eve shown on the arm of the throne" would allow me to imagine, at least to a limited extent, what the image is showing. Some, though, would not give me much to go on. For example, "The Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele, Oil on wood, 141 x 176.5 cm (including frame), 1434–36. Groeningemuseum, Bruges" for the lede image doesn't tell me that there are two other people in the painting or how they are dressed or positioned or that the canon is kneeling. The alt text can't be enormously long, but many of these seem too skimpy to me to be helpful. Would you mind having another stab at these with blind readers in mind? Finetooth (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, with the disclaimer, that the lead and body describe the paintings in detail, and the alt text should prob also adhere to the sources. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Can you take another look. Re sources: some of the alt descriptions are from other articles I and a few others had worked on earlier, and are well sourced...if needs be. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. They are much better. I deleted "with an overhanging" from Madonna of Jan Vos because it made no sense to me, and the sentence made sense without it. Please adjust if I misunderstood. I'm now happy to support, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • The third paragraph seems problematic to me in a couple of ways. The lede is to be a summary and should not contain information that is not mentioned in the main text. Examples: Is the oak frame mentioned in the main text? Or the claim that the panel "contains one of the finest extant examples of Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting"? Is Illusionism mentioned in the main text? Or the claim that the work is "one of the earliest known sacra conversazione paintings..."? The other problem that I see is that some of the claims in this third paragraph are supported by citations, and usually the lede needs no citations if the claims are repeated and cited in the main text. My suggestion would be to move the direct quotations in this paragraph to appropriate places below and to cite them there and to make sure that other claims such as the one about the oak frame appear there also.
Commission
  • ¶2 "...to question his mortality..." – Perhaps "to reflect upon" rather than "to question"?
  • ¶2 "His bequest allowed him a requiem mass, a daily mass and three votive masses a week." – I'm not sure what this means. Perhaps "In return for his bequest, the church granted him a requiem mass, a daily mass and three votive masses a week meant to intercede with the divine on his behalf"? Some of this becomes more clear to me later in the section, but I think something is needed here. Adding something here might mean tinkering a bit with the stuff lower down to avoid repetition.
  • ¶3 "...is known to have actively sponsored..." – Delete "actively" since "sponsored" contains the action?
Panel
Figures
  • ¶1 "The Virgin sits on an elevated throne situated below..." - Delete "situated"?
  • That's all. Finetooth (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • Van Der Elst The Last Flowering of the Middle Ages appears to have a wrong ISBN - when I click on the ISBN link to go to WorldCat, WorldCat shows no entry for that ISBN number. I can find the book through searching the title, but not for a 2005 printing.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have fixed the ref for Van Der Elst. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Looks good - queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his mortality and his position as canon. - I'd be tempted to switch to "left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." - gives it more gravitas..and can't be a canon if you are dead...?
do we have any clue as to van der Paele's illness? As a doctor I am curious about these things... oops, missed the footnotes. nevermind.

Otherwise looks all in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I've moved the diagnosis from the notes into the article body; it was a good question and I think most people would wonder when reading. I agree also on the reflections of mortality; done. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

  • The detail pics should be redone from the decent main pic, rather than using old ones from the ropey Yorck Project pic. This doesn't take a moment with croptool.
  • They didnt seem much better when I looked. There is really no decent reproduction line that I can find, most either low rez, or too dark Ceoil (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 2 paras in the lead.

More later. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re the images - am intending to redo tonight per your suggestion. Re the lead; see comments above; also on my radar! Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any good reproductions to crop from. This is always an issue with the Groeningemuseum. Ceoil (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, were you still planning to add further comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
er, well, yes, I hope so, but please don't wait for me. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing:
  • "both the front piece for an altar and serve as his epitaph". Not just a normal altarpiece, fixed over the altar? Surely not an altar frontal, below it?
    Resolved Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The painting is line with a series of inscriptions which comment of the saint they are positioned, and include van Eyck's signature." huh?
    Hmm. Done. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "St. George stands beside him, presenting the elderly priest to Mary, with his hat raised in respect." It's metal, so "helmet" surely? So called by Brine (first page), Pacht (quoted below) and Snyder (Snyder, James. Northern Renaissance Art, 1985, Harry N. Abrams, ISBN 0136235964).
    Resolved Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are I think using British English, but there is: centered, center, colors (otherwise there is "colour" also).
    Mostly done. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The concept of purgatory as an intermediary state before admission to heaven was at its height" - not really; it was becoming standard, and indulgences were reaching their height, no? Masses for the dead were perhaps at a peak (Harbison, 60).
    I removed this in the end. Ceoil (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Donatian is described as having "Enjoy[ed] the Glory of God"," - Harbison, 59 has "now enjoys the glory of God" which seems better (and which you use later).
    Have applied Harbison. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "phrases from the Book of Wisdom, comparing Mary to an "unspotted mirror".[7]" - might expand, per Harbison, 59. - Could add later, around note 28.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commission" section - Brine covers this in massive detail, & is the most recent. Some 2nd refs to him would be good.
    Unfortunately I don't have Brine, or a few hundred quid to spare to acquire his book, so have not been able to expand. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got v good long chunks on google books, as you usually do with BRILL. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Van Eyck abandons the strict symmetry and clear theological basis of the typical Italian sacra conversazione to create a work that stands up to a variety of interpretations" - there hardly was a "typical Italian sacra conversazione" in 1436, indeed Encyc Brit describes as the first sc the Annalena Altarpiece by Fra Angelico, c. 1438–40 (probably wongly, but even so). If by "clear theological basis" you mean not mixing saints and sinners in the same space, better to say so.
    Most of this is gone. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is a departure from conventional and contemporary central and northern European memorials" (I changed from "epitaphs" which are strictly text only). Not quite what Brine is saying, I think.
  • "The carved figures on the throne and on the capitals behind include Old and New Testament characters, and may allude to either the Crucifixion – to the left of the Virgin and Child – or the Resurrection – to the right of the two figures." (and picture captions below) And then later: "The carved figures on the upper arms of the throne are representations of Adam and Eve, and those on the legs are prefiguring events from the Life of Christ,[7] as well as Old Testament scenes, including the meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek and the Sacrifice of Isaac.[6] All too compressed, and rather confused. Adam and Eve are on the uprights of the throne, with Cain and Abel and Samson killing the lion the carvings in the round rising from the arms. There isn't any difficulty in identifying these, surely? Also the other scenes are on the architectural capitals, which is where the meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek and the Sacrifice of Isaac are. Harbison, 61 & Snyder. The iconography section would be the natural place for this.
  • Section has been reworked, and moved to "iconography" Ceoil (talk)
  • Personally I'm super-dubious about doctors diagnosing figures in old master paintings, though they do love to do it.
    Readers love to read it also; its human interest. Will need to make a call - either heavier disclaimers or banishment to footnotes. Not decided. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reflective of his status as patron saint of the Bruges collegiate" - or more simply, "dedicatee of the cathedral the painting was made for, and of the city of Bruges"? Earlier you refer to "St. Donatian's collegiate church", but it was the cathedral. Better to say so (adding destroyed 1799). I was confused.
  • George "is the donor's name saint" - belongs much earlier I think.
    Now mentioned in lead Ceoil (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The artist depicts himself standing at his easel," could be earlier than the end of the style section.
    Now moved to the St. George paragraph in description; though considering mentioning it in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provenance - Brine has good detail on the history before the French.
  • In general the layout seems a bit higglety-piggelety, with info coming slightly randomly. Brine and Harbison's conclusions & interpretation are only covered very allusively (they are the sources you use that I have or can see). The whole question of the purpose, and intended placing, of the work deserves a bit more, i think.
Thinking about coherence; this will likely be the last issue addressed as the article evolves from the above points. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Layout restructured, so the facts are not so randomly organised. Ceoil (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks John. It will take around 3 weekends to reconfigure the article, if that timeline is ok with the delegates. I will reply to John's subject matter expert review intermittently, and then ping him here when done. Ceoil (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sorry it took so long for me to do a proper review. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, there's no rush here. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, would you mind taking another look pls. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this gbooks Brice link work for you? I get about 20 pages on the painting. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got around 3 pages from that range, but one of them very revealing, van der Paele was in a queue to have his painting completed, and that the original, targeted date, was missed. I have added, but interest is really piqued. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of what I can see, about van der Paele buying a second chaplaincy etc, I dont want to get into on this page. Ceoil (talk)

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for offering another stunning beautiful painting! I took the liberty to change some image positions, and the fixed sizes, "upright" is more considerate of a reader's preferences.

Lead

  • I'd prefer the explanation going from the things you see at a glance to those covering details, especially mention the Canon sooner. I fear that not every reader will know without a link what a Canon is, or - worse - may think to know. As usually, no other comments to the lead until I read the rest. Just one:
  • Not sure I know what a "sacred space" is.
    The lead was gutted last night, as it had a bunch of info not covered in the body. I agree with your approach; will be redrafting later. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commission

  • "... left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his mortality" - means he was unable to fulfill and unable to reflect, no?
This has been redrafted Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'In return for his bequest, ..." - where does the quote end?
    EEk, wasn't a quote, stray punctuation. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • chaplainy, chaplaincy?
  • "It was installed at the main altar" - what does it mean? As the main altar? Adjacent?
  • Should have been "On" (or in front of). Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panel

  • Yes, there's a link to sacra conversazione, but how about a few words explaining, or at least a translation?
  • Check sentences beginning with "it" and "he" if it's really clear what is meant.
  • If Virgin and Child are linked again, how about other terms from the lead as well. New Testament didn't even appear there. (Common practise, to my knowledge: link in lead and first appearance afterwards)
  • Please decide Romanesque vs. romanesque, and St. Donatian/George/other vs. St Donatian/George/other. (I know the latter as strictly English.)
  • Romanesque is only in lowercase within a quote - looking at the others. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Figures

  • Parrot? (The sources probably have it, but it looks less like a parrot than this one, - also a FAC, btw.)
    I need to follow up more on this - if it is a parrot, its one ugly example :) Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    More to follow on the parrot / or not! Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about the building's relic seems a bit too complicated, - split?

Inscriptions

  • Explain or link ADONAI?
  • link to biblical source?
  • Not sure how, if you mean to the likes of 7:29. Can you help here? Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about explaining Mary's first, then the left, then the right?

Style and format

  • Can the image with the self-portrait go here, where it's mentioned? (... and the pilasters, not mentioned, elsewhere?
Thank you, for this and many more. Next wish: The Rolin to where it is mentioned, to focus on the Canon (and have his image right). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance

  • "local French-speaking and national Dutch-speaking officials of Bruges" - to my knowledge, the locals speak Dutch, and the nation is divided Dutch and French, both official. I'd say Flemish, not Dutch, but have been corrected several times. This year, I have an image from Bruges on my user page, DYK?
Hmm. I have simplified this a bit. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

  • Can the (last) image of the Canon's head go to where the rendering of his illness is described?

That's it for now, enjoyed it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gerda, glad you like the painting. Will be getting to these very helpful points this evening. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All, done, I think Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very nice, though hardly Maoist art:) Just a few comments.

  • "Mary is positioned at the center of a tight semicircular and space" is semicircular a noun?
  • The ending of the lede seems weak.
  • "An illness around 1431[3] left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." I might substitute "function" for "role", or use some other term. Role doesn't really seem to fit. I might add a "caused" after the first use of "and".
  • "Art historian Barbara Lane speculates that van der Paele may have sought divine protection through prayers and the depiction of intercessors in the painting as relief from his long illness." I'm in doubt what the last part of this sentence means, whether vdP was hoping for a distraction or divine healing.
  • "There was a trend towards the sponsorship of requiem masses, often as part of the terms of a will, a practice that van der Paele, in his official capacity, is known to have sponsored. With this income he endowed the churches with embroidered cloths and metal accessories such as chalices, plates and candlesticks" In the second sentence, assuming the income spoken of is the gifts coming in and vdP had the responsibility of spending it, I might say "In his capacity as canon, van der Paele spent money paid for masses on embroidered cloths for the churches and metal ..." or some such.
  • "Most likely the work was first hung in the church nave as an accompaniment to an altar for Saints Peter and Paul and used for memorial masses for van der Paele and his family." How was the panel used?
  • "The painting contains one of the finest extant examples of Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting[" I might say "depictions" for "examples" unless I'm missing something. I might also switch to "of an Oriental carpet"
  • "Madonna of Jan Vos. Jan van Eyck and Workshop, 1441–43s." (picture caption) what's with the s on the date?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Wehwalt, all valid and useful points. I agree with all your observations; working. Ceoil (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: All done. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks good. Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

These articles are one of the reasons I still hang about Wikipedia, though past my sell-by date. My review is limited to prose and presentation, and i have a few minor points. I'm not insisting you accept them all.

Lead
  • "who was then gravely ill" → "who at the time was gravely ill" (otherwise it might be thought that the illness followed the commission, rather than being the reason for it).
  • Why isn't St George linked, while Saint Donatian is?
Commission
  • "...a position which afforded him income from the various parishes under his remit, and allowed him to commission the best painter in the region". Suggest a slight rewording: "a position which afforded him sufficient income from the various parishes under his remit to commission the best painter in the region for his proposed work of art".
  • "An illness around 1431 left van der Paele unable to fulfill the function and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." Again, a slight modification suggested: "An illness around 1431 left van der Paele unable to fulfill the functions of his office, and led him to reflect upon his position as canon and on his mortality".
  • "the donation" seems a bit weak; perhaps "der Paele's beneficence" (or "benefaction")
  • "It was donated to the church..." → "He donated it to the church..." (active voice)
Panel
  • Second para: Can anything be done about four "ands" in the second sentence?
  • The word "from" (second word in third para) needs deleting. "After from..." doesn't make sense.
  • "He abandons..." → "Van Eyck abandons..."
  • "and evidence the influence..." → "and evidences the influence..."
  • Link Romanesque architecture
Figures
  • "at the side of her lap" → "at the side of the Virgin's lap"
  • "c. 950". I believe that the use of such abbreviations in WP text is frowned on, so I'd make this "around 950" 9you use this form elsewhere) – and I'd specify AD (There are other instances of "c." in the text}.
Iconography
  • "According to Ward it is odd...": from the wording it's not clear what Ward considers odd – is it the symbols themselves, or their placement? If it's the symbols, shouldn't it be "they are odd"?
Style and format
  • Third para begins: "As with his..." Pronouns should not be used on the first mention of a person in a paragraph. Van Eyck hasn't been named since the first paragraph in this section.
Provenance and attribution
  • "and while it was in the mid-19th century going through a process of rediscovery..." Rather clumsy – suggest: "and while in the mid-19th century it was going through a process of rediscovery..."
  • "Memling" should be identified as Hans Memling, and linked.

A fine article as expected, and I look forward to supporting its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, have worked through all of these very helpful and clear suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Well done, team, and keep on giving us these great articles. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moisejp[edit]

Minor comments:

  • Lead: Furs and silks are mentioned, but I couldn't spot mention of them in the main text. (I guess there is mention of St. Donatian's cope, which we find out from the wiki-link would have been silk.)
  • Panel section: "It is a departure from conventional and contemporary central and northern European epitaphs. Van Eyck abandons the strict symmetry and clear theological basis of the typical Italian sacra conversazione to create a work that stands up to a variety of interpretations." Is this meant to fall under ref #14 or possibly ref #11?
  • Style and format: In the sixth paragraph of this section all meant to fall under ref #41 (except for the point about the allusion to early Netherlandish art)? Moisejp (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi Ceoil, is there any reason why the {{harvnb}} template has not been used on the book citations? I always find it useful to click on a citation and it takes me to the book reference being used. Also, we do not generally hardcode the image pixels. In this case you are already using individual pieces from the main image to illustrate the article. I don't think you need to hardcode the pixel for it. Leads to accessibility issues in narrower screens/tablets/phones etc to view them. —IB [ Poke ] 05:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because so many people loath it? There is absolutely no required or preferred citation style, and I suggest you don't push your favourite. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update to delegates Working through the more general, structural issues raised by Johnbod and Moisejp, ie strength of lead, a more coherent structure and groupings of factoids, and a more up to date, comprehensive detailing of the circumstances around the commission. Meeting these will add about another 10kb of text, but its hardly controversial stuff. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Hi Ceoil, Nice to meet you recently (and several others who have commented on this page too!) Excellent article and some very minor nit-picking from me, none of which detracts from my admiration of your work. I know little of the subject matter, so this is a review of the prose only.

Lead
  • You have "center" at the top (and center and centered lower down), but "colour" and "coloured" and a few other British English spellings in the rest of the piece.
  • I'm not sure about the construct "canon; including" – I think a comma would work better than the s-c.
Commission
  • Second paragraph we jump from Mary's importance to van der Paele's duties to where van der Paele kept the panel in three sentences. My problems are threefold:
    • The jumps between subject on each sentence are a bit of a bumpy ride. (To overcome this, van der Paele's duties could be moved to the first paragraph, which is more about the man himself);
    • There is no mention that van Eyck completed the work (or when) – that is referred to in the following paragraph
    • Should this history of van der Paele's holding the panel, demolition of the church, etc, be in the Commissioning section? (Renaming to Commission and history, or similar, may suffice?)
Figures
  • There is a sneaky "doesn't" which should be un-contracted

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, yes meeting of some of the five families of the wiki arts and humanities community was very much fun :) Re your comments above, agree with all, and Johnbod has noted other structural issues similar to your suggestion of re-giging the soon to be renamed "Commission and history" section. Am knee deep in all this, drowning in sources, mud and grit; will ping you to revisit towards the end of the w/end if thats ok. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No rush from me; quality takes time, and I always enjoy reading your articles. – SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update for delegates. Johnbod observed that the facts were presented a bit haphazardly at times; and have completed a restructure. Last remaining issues are tying up the conclusions of art historians (what does it all mean), and some expanding of the commission. Ceoil (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A further reading this morning, post changes, and I've moved to support (my review "disclaimer" here). I made a couple of very minor changes here, but nothing too substantial. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Been a while since the above update so... Ceoil, do you have any more significant tweaks to make? Alternatively, Johnbod, do you have any outstanding concerns? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm finished adding; John also made an addition here. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I may add further touches, so I don't think I should !vote. But no remaining concerns on the comments above. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys, I think we can put this review to bed then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Virgin_and_Child_with_Canon_van_der_Paele/archive1&oldid=1142602461"