Talk:The Haywain Triptych

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

This article is below standard. Let me sum up the flaws: the name is Hieronymus should be Jheronimus, as we know since the 1980's the Prado version of the Haywain is most likely a copy, as is the El Escorial version the triptych can only be made in or after 1510. Hard data thanks to dendrochronology the title of the outer wings is the Wayfarer or the Pedlar, just like the Rotterdam panel the theme of the Paradise panel is not at all like the Paradise panel of the Garden of Earthly Delights. THe Haywain Paradise is about God as a punisher of those who disobey him, whereas the Garden shows the last moment in history when all was well. the main sin committed on the central panel is avarice, the other sins are depicted only marginal. the image sown is NOT the Prado Haywain, but the El Esorial Haywain...

Thomas Vriens tijvriens@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.61.190 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

This article is written in a very confusing manner. Is there anyway to clean up the language? I would also request that the article be given more depth. It's just too short Killemall22 (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

images

The images are from the Escorial version. The Prado one however is better and genarally considered the original one. Can somebody change them?Thom1516 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and inconsistent dimensions

The dimensions in the article are inconsistent. Those in the opening paragraph contradict those in the summary box. (A set of dimensions is given as the size of the whole piece in one and as the size of just the central panel in the other).

The dimensions are incorrect. Simple arithmetic and examination of the sizes of the three panels provided in the introductory paragraph shows that they do not represent a rectangular tryptych, in which the heights of all three panels must be the same (they are not in the description).

Suggest finding a reliable source, such as the gallery in which the painting is housed.