Talk:The Entombment (Bouts)

The Entombment (Bouts) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 7, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 23, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
December 6, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Garish, loud understatement

Who is the fourth woman? The real third of The Three Marys?
"muted, restrained understatement", as opposed to garish, loud understatement?

Nice work, Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re (1), yeah but so source I've found yet names her. (2) ah get lost ;) Ceoil 20:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Amandajm

Oh, well done! It's such a lovely painting that it is good to see an article on it. I have just a few comments.

Mary's dress still appears to be basically dark blue. It is only her cloak that is brown. And it doesn't appear to be from discolouration.
The description of the original colours I think should be "bright and crisp".
The two older men at the head and feet of Jesus are Joseph of Arimethea and Nicodemus.
The youthful man in the red robe is John the Evangelist. John is traditionally depicted as young and beardless, and clothed in red. (Only in pictures showing him as the writer of Revelations is he shown as an old bearded man.) This identification is further strengthened by the fact that he is supporting Mary. Jesus had commissioned him to care for her as his mother. He is often shown at the side of the Crucifixion supporting her as she faints. If the cited source says otherwise, then they are wrong.
I know I seem to harp on this, but could you please use "possibly" and "probably" instead of "likely". "Likely" is the same part of speech as "possible" and "probable" i.e. it is an adjective, not an adverb.

Amandajm (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by anon

There is some repetition in the Condition section. See first three paragraphs there; "it is the best preserved work of its type" is said twice, among other things. Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting. Articles like this are v hard to source and finding factoids becomes almost a reason to break out the bubbly. Perhalps I broke it out two times more than I should have. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. When this is done, it will be the best article on Bouts' Entombment on Wikipedia. (Dry joke; you know that meme.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was my copy-paste error when I was shoving around text. I tend to make mistakes like that. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it was me. Riggr thanks very much for the copyediting. Always a pleasure sir. Ceoil (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Z-weave refers to a form of Herringbone weave. How strange that the painting is on pieces of linen with a different weave
Name the mourners in the intro.
The description of their various attitudes of grief is a bit clumsy, because they all express some form of sorrow.

I think it is excellent otherwise.

Amandajm (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Including pics of both the Rogier van der Weydens is too crowded, particularly since the details of the triptych can't be seen unless it is enlarged. I would remove that one, and talk about the details in the text. Also, if you have the info referenced, then remove as much material as possible from the captions into the body of text, e.g. the reference to Niccodemus, because the similarities go much further than that, and could be discussed more fully.

Amandajm (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a relief in the arch of the central panel of the altarpiece that is very obviously a basis for the Bouts which would be great to include, but its a tiny detail and I can't find a copy with high enough resolution to allow a decent crop. Its pictured in one of the books (in black and white but no matter); I might take it to work tomorrow and scan it there. I agree otherwise, but I might try and expand the section, and maybe both images can be accomidated then. But if not, yeah, one has to go. I like what you've done with the images otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of replacing the Descent image with the detail to the right. What do you think? Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polyptych

Sorry guys but I now have no idea who painted this, and I have barely an idea what this section is saying. Art historian Lorne Campbell proposed in 1998 that the whole work, a polyptych, comprised a large central crucifixion scene with two works half its length and width positioned at either side – a format similar to Bouts' c. 1464–67 Altar of Holy Sacrament, which is the same size? Is the polyptich as illustrated complete? Is it missing 4 sections? 2 sections? I don't get it...Modernist (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to: "The Entombment was probably painted as part of a winged altarpiece created for export to Venice. Art historian Lorne Campbell proposed in 1998 that the the altarpiece was a polyptych comprised of a large central crucifixion scene with two works half its length and width positioned at either side – a format similar to Bouts' c. 1464–67 Altar of Holy Sacrament, of which the wing panels are of the same lenght as the The Entombment."

The polyptych would have had a large central panel and four half lenght wings. Ceoil (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe put what you said above - "The Entombment was probably painted as the [whereever it's placed - top right?] panel of a winged altarpiece created for export to Venice. Art historian Lorne Campbell proposed in 1998 that the the altarpiece was a polyptych comprised of a large central crucifixion scene with two works half its length and width positioned at either side – a format similar to Bouts' c. 1464–67 Altar of Holy Sacrament, of which the wing panels are of the same lenght as the The Entombment." Something like that. Let me get up to speed and think about it. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell has a restruction in his big book, with the Enbombment placed on the upper right wing. The reproduction is in black and white, but the central crucifixion is brilliant, esp the heavy bodies of the two figures crucified on either side of christ. I'll scan it at work tomorrow, I guess there might be some rational to include it as its so important to understanding the work under discussion. It occurs to me that I might try and approach Campbell himself. Ive seen it happen a few times on other articles, and the responce has been surprisingly positive and supportive. Ceoil (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should try to get a link to the supposed centerpiece - ~~The Resurrection~~ The Crucifiction that's in Belgium. It looks to be in interestingly similar shape to the Entombment...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tried, but even after an exhaustive search on line have found nothing, which is more than a little fustrating. Its actually a vital piece for the article, which is weaker for its lack. Thanks though for the spot above Modernist, I appreciate your attention to detail. Ceoil (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to grab it - you can see it online there; it is frustrating...Modernist (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found it but it's a weird link. That is frustrating. Can you use a black & white one? Truthkeeper (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Black and white is fine as its such a physical work, even a low res repro will convery. Link pls. Ceoil (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a pdf - will resend. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it and tks. I'm not sure if we can use it, although it is vital. If there is a way, I'd swap it with the Altar of the Holy Sacrament img, which I'm not fond of, and anyway this is far superior. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you could use the entire reproduction, but you can at least screen print the crucifixion. I'd ask an image expert though - maybe you can use it w/ a FUR. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had the same problem with the Magdalen; you just cant reproduce its still within copyright law. But using the central panel on its own is a good idea, thanks bot. Ceoil (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see this...Modernist (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Modernist for spotting the gap. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the sources

I am about to appear very rude and critical here, but I've got to say it. It would be very nice to be able to say simply that Bouts was influenced by van der Weyden and the Miraflores Altarpiece. But this is all too simple. It presupposes tht Bouts wasn't familiar with other Depositions and the very long history of depicting them in certain ways.

1. To say that the small monochrome sculpture on the arch in the Miraflores Altarpiece informed Bout's painting is, frankly, nonsense, regardless of how well sourced that information may be.

Bouts grew up and attended church in a tradition rife with sculptured altarpieces, and far more mural paintings than have survived until today. Bouts had probably seen a dozen or so, before he painted his deposition, and the tiny image in the Miraflores alatrpiece would have been the least of them, being itself derived from an old tradition.

The traditional depictions began long before van der Weyden and Bouts, and extended to Titian and Raphael.

Niccodemus takes Jesus's top half, Joseph of Arimethea takes his feet, Mary his mother holds one of his hands, or supports his arm, and Mary Magdelene is positioned on the other side, near his feet. The alternative is that May Magdelene supports his arm and Mary his mother faints, supported by John.

Van der Weyden paints a standard version as a little sculpture.

Bout's version is not a standard version because the position of Jesus' head to the furthest extreme of the composition and the position of Niccodemus with his face gazing at that of Jesus are irregular. This suggests to me that the role of Nicodemus is not simply one of supporting and facilitating. He has been placed in the position of chief mourner. My guess would be that the figure is a portrait of the donor.

2. With regards to the body of Jesus, I see only passing resemblance to the body painted by van der Weyden in the Miraflores Altarpiece, given that this was a common subject. The lolling head and drooping arm are standard iconography. The position of the figures are otherwise different, the figure in the van der Weyden being apparently affected by rigor mortis and the Bout's not.

Moreover, the anatomy of Jesus as painted by Bouts is infinitely superior to that painted by van der Weyden. Basically, van der Weyden doesn't have a clue as to what is connected to what, while Bouts knows precisely.

3. As for that picture by Bellini, I fail to see any connection whatsoever. I can see a direct connection with the Mantegna that is reproduced on the same page as the Bellini, but not to the Bouts. What exactly does the source say? Bellini painted several pictures of the dead Christ, generally supported by angels. He had a sort of tradition, which had little to do with Bouts or van der Weyden. What is the connection? I would definitely delete the Bellini. Amandajm (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just did this massive search on that "straight arm" motif that is such an important feature in the van der Weyden Descent from the Cross because the Virgin Mary is drooping with her arm dropped in the same way as Jesus. That vertically drooping arm goes back to the 12th century. It became a very common motif in the 15th century, and a characteristic of Michelangelo's Pieta. Amandajm (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amandajm - the link between this painting and the piece from the Miraflores does seem to be fairly well sourced: apparently first mentioned in Davies, and repeated in Campbell and Koch. I have the Koch essay which is here on JSTOR. Would be more than happy to send it to you if you don't have access. As a compromise, how would you feel if that particular point were attributed to Davies - apparently the first person to make the claim - leaving open all the other possibilities you've mentioned above? As for Bellini - I'll leave that for Ceoil to respond. Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bellini is removed completly, as is the altarpiece image. The other two links are now as far as I can see made within a single sentence and crouched with "according to" and "believed" clarifiers. I'm not unapposed to further disclamers if nessessary, maybe along the lines of a however..... The thought about Niccodemus representing a donor is very interesting. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The altarpiece relief now banished to the notes. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?

"...and an oak panel attributed to a follower of Bouts is in the Kreuzlingen, Switzerland.[15]" But Kreuzlingen is a municipality. What is "the Kreuzlingen"? --John (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the source and thought it was a museum. Fixed now, good catch. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's this?

Can I recommend that you removed the detail of the V.der.W deposition, as it seriously draws away from the Bouts, being more intensely coloured. Since the Bouts is the subject of the article, it needs to be examined on its own merits. Amandajm (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to use the reconstructed altarpiece but we can't. We've had the this discussion with an image expert re The Magdalen Reading - copyright of the reconstruction belongs to the reconstructor - see Koch's above. That said, it might be worth finding out whether we can make our own, or maybe someone else reading here knows. I'm not opposed to moving and perhaps shrinking the Deposition - agree that it draws away from Bouts. I'd like to think about a complete removal, but am not entirely opposed to the idea.Truthkeeper (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its self made so should be ok? It would eb a grest addition. Agree with the image in the desc section. Ceoil (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to have - agree. According to the description, the entombment should be on the top right, not the bottom right. And then maybe replace the images in the section with this self-made reconstruction, and rejig or remove the deposition that's below? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my reconstruction. That's why it doesn't have the left hand pic. It's made of what we have available. Since I don't agree that the entombment would go above the resurrection, I've done it the other way round. Amandajm (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the relative positions of the works, there is a tendency for the modern mind to lock into a left to right, top to bottom reading for artworks. This is not always the case. For example, if a nativity also contains a background scene of the Annunciation to the Shepherds, it is nearly always placed top right, not top left, where the image would be in a 20th century comic book. The image of the Deposition is a "down" image (by its very nature) and the image of the Resurrection is an "up" image. The Deposition must be below the Resurrection because one relates to Heaven, and the sunrise and the other to the grave.

I'm thinking about doing a small crop that shows a detail of the canvas, the nail holes and deteriorated colour. Useful? Amandajm (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. I'll see what I can dig on the placing for the works in the reconstructions. Ceoil (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the crop of nail holes. Very good. I think that the whole article is looking good. Amandajm (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re positions, the up/down pattern in works of this type also means that the Annunciation goes above the Nativity, because one is about the Divine nature of Christ and the other is about earthly incarnation. Also, I found a useful Deposition that relates closely to this. I think I may have saved it, but maybe I have't because I was looking for something else. I'll see if I can track it down again. Amandajm (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great and I look forward. Image placement is really bothering me with this article, I cant seem to get it right, and after reading up yesterday on wiki policy had to conclude that we cant use your reconstruct as its deritiative, and falls under OR. No matter that its hugely important to the understanding to the work, and would be great addition, but here we are. At least people interested enough to care will prob look at the talk, and we have two reconstuctions here. I'll prop add another detail tomorrrow, showing the loss of paint on the cloth of the Magdalen's dress and the film of dirth. Ceoil (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the derivative reconstruction can just sit here on the talk page, can't it? No harm in that! Amandajm (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose but I'm dissapointed, espically as so much effort has been made on it, from TK digging into the sources to find the reconstruction Campbell mentions, to you actually making another with convincing arguments for an alt placing of the pictures. On the plus side I've learned a lot from this article and its talk page. And the reviews, from Brian, Carcharoth and you, have challenged and pushed me, so thats another good thing.Ceoil (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Companion pieces

Bringing two minor issues here from the FAC:

(1) "The other works, which are now all in public collections, were described as [...] Adoration of the Kings (now in a private collection) and [...]" - there is a contradiction here, which I've underlined. To fix this, I've made this edit, which will need checking.
(2) I mentioned that the repetition about the companion pieces wasn't explicit enough, but the current approach now duplicates the same text. I think this could be rewritten slightly like this. Again, please correct this if I've made it misleading in any way.

Not a lot more to say. As I said, a very nice article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. Will review the sources and fix. Thanks also for fixing the repetition - quite honestly, I forgot about that issue while trying nail down a good definition of glue-size. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few other changes and typo corrections while reading through it one last time. All changes are here. As always, please change and/or revert as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the edits to the collections are well-done and correct per the sources; and it seems that no matter how many times I look at an article, I never find the all the mistakes, so thanks for the extra eyes. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot Carcharoth, now fixed. Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crops

They're good!

Amandajm (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Ceoil (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davies 1953

I've corrected the slightly garbled reference for Davies 1953. Although the title is French, the text is in English. The volume gives brief technical details of paintings in the National Gallery but was published in Antwerp by De Sikkel. Details of the Entombment are on pages 24-27 (the picture is number 27 - but Vol. 1 starts at picture number 21). Some of the details in the volume differ very slightly from those in the Wiki article: the dimensions are given as 89.9 x 74.2 cm. The article by Davies says that the body is supported by S. Joseph of Arimathea and S. Nicodemus - and that it is probably Nicodemus at Christ's feet. For the 19th century history of the painting the article cites notebooks written by Sir Charles Eastlake that are held by the NG. Aa77zz (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davies is wrong. Nicodemus was a Pharisee. So he is always depicted as bearded and wearing a hat, as Orthodox Jews have for hundreds of years. Joseph of Arimathea is likely to be depicted wearing a gold chain or some such badge of office signifying a judicial rather than a religious role. In this picture, Nicodemus is the the left and Joseph of Arimathea to the right. Amandajm (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell 1998 gives 87.5 x 73.6 cm. I dont have Davies anymore, did you find it online? Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep with Campbell. I didn't find anything online - I looked at the book in the Victoria & Albert Museum library. Aa77zz (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky you to have that access and thanks for your usual careful attention to detail. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rogier

Amanda, I now have 3 sources mentioning the Miraflores Altarpiece pieta; Davies, Koch and Campbell, so I have to at least mention it. Note however it will be in passing. You hinted before that you might be able to grab a detail of it, um asking.... Ceoil (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I was hoping to work through the rest of this & review, but now I am away for 5 days. Prob next week. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, these things cant be helped. Enjoy the trip. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too late! Congratulations anyway, Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Well done all!..Modernist (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What M said. Nice work! Kafka Liz (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Amandajm (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed this. Thanks, and thanks for all the help. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stable version

Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have placed on this talk page. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconus^{p t c} 22:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Lovely to open the computer and see this on the front page of Wiki!

Amandajm (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Amanda, its a nice little victory to give the work this exposure, and there is no small thanks due to you. Ceoil (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wing panels

"four wing panel works half its length ". What measurement does "length" apply to here? Would "four wing panels half its height and width" be a clearer description, if correct? Or "four hinged wing panels, each half its width" be the correct description?--Wetman (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source for this but can't get to it until later today, unless Ceoil gets to it first. It's a good point. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Height obviously if they were hinged wings. We cant know about width as what work might have formed the central panel is lost. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I read something about this but could have been dreaming it. Anyway will have a look at the pdfs I have to refresh my memory. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Documentary evidence"

"documentary evidence drawn from various inventories indicates that the painting was produced on commission for export to Venice" This is opaque: must we take it on faith? What the evidence actually is, and how it's to be interpreted as "produced on commission for export to Venice" will certainly interest the Wikipedia reader.--Wetman (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified this. Its speculation based on that it first came to light in Venice and that the row of tack hole at the top, as well as the tight framing (which cuts off an area of sky) indicate that it was streched and framed later and without consulting Bouts himself. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incosistency within the article

File:Dieric Bouts - The Entombment - WGA02961 Colour adjusted.jpg

A reconstruction of the colours

Lead:

[The painting's] colours are now far darker than when it was painted; they would originally have appeared as pale and dry.

"Condition" section:

The colours would have first appeared bright and crisp, but over five-and-a-half centuries the painting has acquired layers of grey dirt which darken the tone and render the colours faint and pallid. (...) The colours as they appear today have faded from their original hues.

So which one is true? Were the colors originally bright, or were they originally pale? JudgeDeadd (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the colours were clearly quite intense, particularly the red on the robe of St John, like that in the Resurrection also on linen by the same artist. The colours never had the intensity or brilliance achieved in oil paint.

"Brighter and crisper than they now appear" is the better description.
"Pale and dry" is bad. "Less intense and brilliant than comparative oil paintings" is more accurate.

Amandajm (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iconography

There is a question above about the Mary's: the Three Marys are Mary Salome, Mary Cleophas, Mary Magdalene. "The Three Marys" doesn't include Mary the Mother of Jesus. Amandajm (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will fix this. The reconstruction is facinating and amazing, really, really well done; would I be able to place it in the article do you think. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm looking at the new lead image which is very high resolution, I ca see all the problems with this. I will have to have another go. Amandajm (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Entombment (Bouts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005191647/http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/learn-about-art/paintings-in-depth/art-in-the-making/*/viewPage/4 to http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/learn-about-art/paintings-in-depth/art-in-the-making/*/viewPage/4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest some edits?

Greetings, editors. I tremble to dare this on a notable page, but I’d like to drop in about 2,000 bytes of new items, in order to revise and extend the good work done over the last dozen years. A few passages left me confused on first reading. If it’s all right, I’d aim for:

clarification on a few items, e.g. in the lead for about the medium (though I see this has already gone a few rounds here), the Gospel, and at the end, on 'influence.'
review of semi-colons, and some other alterations in diction or syntax for clarity and legibility
may we substitute 'European' for 'western,' given the re-thinking in history- and geography-writing over the last years?
likewise switch from 'restoration' to 'conservation,' in terms of what’s now done in labs around the world?
differentiate between 'colour' and 'pigment' in a couple of spots
add wiki-links to concepts like Golgotha, support, lining, underdrawings
as with the notion of 'western,' readers find 'Central Europe' a fraught construction, post-1990. 'Influence,' too, may have become a term some art historians might strive to avoid. Finally, the transmission of northern ideas and techniques through the Italian peninsula and much of Europe is by now pretty well documented (though I hesitate to name just one source for that)
I’d place the titles of books in italics in the bibliographic references, and try to make the capitalisation more consistent.

With your agreement, I’ll work this up in a sandbox page, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johannes_der_Taucher/BoutsEntombmentSec1 and then move sections into the exisiting page. I’m new at much of this sort of editing practise, so please do edit, revert, or advise as needed.

Many thanks to anyone checking here. Johannes der Taucher (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes, late here but thanks for suggestions, which are welcome. You are free to edit the page, all your suggestions seem good. Please go ahead. Best. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes der Taucher thanks for posting here. In answer to your questions, the way Wikipedia works is that we're a tertiary source and report only what the sources tell us. Deviating from the sources is what we call original research and it's basically forbidden here. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. If the sources mention color rather than pigments, then we're stuck with the first and can't necessarily swap in the second without good reason, as a single example. This article is what we call a featured article, and has been through a process to adhere to the specific criteria. Generally changing featured articles is discouraged and needs to gain consensus, so as one of the authors I'd prefer not to see a rewrite happen in a sandbox and then swapped in here. It would be better to make small edits and if they don't adhere to the sources (which presupposes that we'd need to have the volunteer time to check those sources), the changes would get reverted, discussed here on the talk page, and then usually some version is agreed on that makes its way to the text. Hope that makes sense; it's a lot to dump into a single comment. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 23:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for the quick reply. I had the same sense about moving things wholesale from a sandbox, so I'll happily treat that text as a first draught and type in changes & additions to the page next week. Fear not: I'm pretty clear about no original research. For better or worse, I'm someone who could only ever draw upon & acknowledge strong sources.Johannes der Taucher (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, since Ceoil & I disagree: I've looked at your sandbox and for various reasons would rather see the edits made directly to the article. I am opposed to a copy-paste from a sandbox, where the article history is lost and it's more difficult to compare diffs, among many reasons. Thanks again. Victoria (tk) 23:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. This has been instructive. Many thanks! Johannes der Taucher (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Days later . . . dropped in my changes, but I'm a terrible proofreader, so please have at it. Again, thanks for the guidance this past week-end. Johannes der Taucher (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]