Talk:Vršac triptych

Vršac triptych has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 10, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vršac triptych article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Serbia Low‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia 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.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hungary Low‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary 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.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vršac triptych/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does "multi-confessional" mean?

Consisting of multiple religions. Should I rephrase?

"Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate" Wikilink? Also Habsburg.

This refers to the patriarchate of Karlovci, which is already linked. Habsburg linked.

I've added a link to Serbian Orthodox Church; I assume I'm understanding you correctly, here? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filipovitch-Robinson is mentioned in the footnote before being mentioned in the prose; can I recommend that the author is introduced in both the footnote and the prose? Also, why "elsewhere" in the footnote? I'm not sure I fully understand.

Fixed.

"Jovanović's firm grasp in Western Medieval panel and mural painting proved of great importance." I'm not sure I follow this sentence; it also seems a little hypebolic. Perhaps it could be rephrased?

Could you explain which part you find confusing? It's saying that the artist's ability to paint in the aforementioned styles made it easier for him to compose the triptych.

"Earlier, Jovanović had also been the" Why 'also?

Fixed.

Apologies for my ignorance, but I'm not sure I understand what "a large-scale contemporary genre painting" is.

No problem. "Large-scale" refers to the size, "contemporary" refers to the time period (in this case, the late 19th century) and "genre" refers to what the painting is a depiction of. In this case, as one of the sources (Filipovitch-Robinson) points out, it is "a sort of history painting". But since it doesn't depict a specific historical moment, it more or less eludes precise classification.

Can I ask what the painting in the analysis section is adding to the article? Might it be better to show the paintings which (it is claimed) influenced (or are at least related to) the Vršac triptych?

The painting belongs to Lorenzetti's series The Allegory of Good and Bad Government, whose parallels to the triptych Filipovitch-Robinson discusses at length.

" the church's view of the migration" I might be wrong, but aren't you using "church" as a proper noun, meaning that "Church" would be correct?

Good catch. Fixed.

That's all that jumps out at me on first view. I initially misunderstood part of the analysis section, but I believe that that was my fault, not yours. I'll be back for another look at some point. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another look:

I'm struggling with the commissioning of the painting. You have "In 1895, the Vršac city council hired Jovanović to paint a composition of the town to be displayed in Budapest", cited to Filipovitch-Robinson 2007, and then in the footnote you have "The art historian Lilien Filipovitch-Robinson states that both paintings were commissioned by the Patriarchate", cited to Filipovitch-Robinson 2014. So did the town commission a painting, but then receive two paintings that were commissioned by the Patriarchate? Or does Filipovitch-Robinson go back on herself? Either way, I think this could be cleared up a bit.
I'm not going to force any changes, but I note that some editors would probably consider the second paragraph of "Commissioning and composition" a little non-neutral in tone. From my very limited experience, it does seem to match the kind of language employed by professional art historians, so I have no great objection.
Again (though, as above, I'm not going to demand any changes) I find the phrase "a large-scale contemporary genre painting" a little difficult to understand as someone unfamiliar with the area (or, minimally, me).

Other than that, I'm happy. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)←[reply]

I think I've covered everything. Will that be all, Josh? 23 editor (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now happy to promote. I think I may have phrased things a little differently to you in a few places, but 1) That's not what GAC is about, and 2) You know more about this than me. Great work; good working with you. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Thanks for your input. 23 editor (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]