Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Garden of Earthly Delights

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:14, 28 May 2008 [1].

The Garden of Earthly Delights

[edit]

c. 1504 triptych by Hieronymus Bosch. Co-nom with Modernist, Kafka Liz and Outriggr. Very helpful PR here. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. I'll attempt to return at some point and do a fuller review, as I've always loved this artwork. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support An interesting article on an important work of art! Thanks all! Here are my comments and questions:

  • Did this work of art influence any other works of art or artists? I was surprised to see no "Legacy" section of some sort.
  • None of the major sources mention the work's influence on later artists. Maybe you could tie in Bruegel at a push, if only because he also painted panoramic hellscapes, and lived just after. But such a section would be at best cobbled together and sevearly disjointed. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do the exotic animals in the left panel represent? At one point in the article, the giraffe is tied to the age of exploration and discovery. Anything else?
Now described in the article as a general appeal to contemporaries interested in the drawing of explorers of the time. I wonder though, if the forms of giraffes or elephants were any less astounding to medieval minds than some of the creatures Bosch imagines in the left panel. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the significance of the hairy figures in the central panel?
Liz found quite a technical article on this last night (Dixon), but we found it difficult to summarise. Found secondary sources tonight, reading through themto still. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few lines intended to shed some light on them. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • God is shown as younger-looking than on the outer panels, and is likely to represent Christ as the incarnation of the Word of God, as described in John 1:14. - awkward wording
  • Fränger distinguished these pieces from the artist's other works, and argued that since they essentially contained anti-cleric polemic, they were yet all, he thought, altarpieces, commissioned for devotional purposes; likely, he concluded, to a mystery cult. - too many phrases separated by commas
  • A late 15th-century engraving by Israhel van Meckenem shows a group of men prancing ecstatically around a female figure (right) - Why does this say "right"?
  • The pointing man has variously been described as either the patron of the work (Fränger in 1947), an advocate of Adam in denouncing Eve (Dirk Bax in 1956), or because he is clothed in a brown cloth, Saint John the Baptist in his brown cloak (Isabel Mateo Goméz in 1963). - There is an odd mixing of citation styles here - suddenly we have Harvard.
This comes from Reuterswärd, and though I have the sources he quotes I have different editions, and the pg nos don't match. My versions (except Fränger) are online but difficult to search, so I'm waiding through so I can cite directly from the original books. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Bibliography" needs to be tidied up - the entries are not listed in a standard form.
  • At times I felt the prose was just the teensiest bit wordy, but it would take a very good copy editor a long time to improve this. I mention it only if someone who comes by feels the urge to polish up what is already very good prose.

I very much enjoyed reading this article. This is one of those times when I could sit back, munch on my breakfast, and learn. Thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Awadewit, and as usual with your reviews there is now broad scope for development. I'll let you know when we're done, or at least ready for a final 'judgment' ;). Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I said at the peer review that I would support this interesting and well-written article for FA, and it has improved since then. Well done, again, to the unflagging Ceoil. qp10qp (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May thanks for the edits and for the very insightful PR, Qp10qp. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This looks pretty good overall. I have a few comments/questions:

  • the triptych is generally considered to be his best-known...work (intro)
Is there any other Bosch painting that might be better known? I only have a casual interest in this stuff, but I'd assume you could just say that it is his best known work. It seems strange to be hedging your bets like that. Interestingly, the next sentence asserts, without hesitation, "The work finds Bosch at the height of his artistic powers, and in no other painting does he achieve such complexity of meaning or such vivid imagery."
OK. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A scene of God presenting Adam with the newly created Eve is at the left of the large central panel, which may be either a moralisation on earthly temptation and sin or a celebration of sexuality; the right panel depicts the torments of damnation. (intro)
I had to read this sentence a couple of times to realize it was talking about all three inner panels. There's too much information crammed into a tight space. It might be better to give each inner panel its own sentence, so that things have room to breathe.
  • In that section, it might be better is you simply describe what the second panel looks like, rather than jump in with the debates over its interpretation.
No strike out yet? Jeeze Zagalejo, your as hard as nails ;) Ceoil (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to, but I ended up with an edit conflict. :) Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was long thought that the work was intended by Bosch as a didactic warning to the viewer on the perils of life's temptations. (intro)
Isn't this kind of redunant to the first sentence of that paragraph?
Yes. I merged the two sentences. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I think that sentence is a tad too long. Sorry. :) Some of that could probably be streamlined. Zagalejo^^^ 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! No pleasing some people ;) Shortened now. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked this a bit to avoid passive voice construction and an apparent contradiction between the paragraph's first and second sentences. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks good now. Zagalejo^^^ 05:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bosch's The Haywain triptych (interior)
Is "The" necessary here? I know Strunk and White recommend dropping the "The" in a title when preceded by a possessive.
OK. Zagalejo^^^ 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no perspectival order in the foreground, instead it comprises a series of brief motifs wherein proportion and terrestrial logic are abandoned. (center panel).
Should that be a semicolon, instead of a comma?
OK. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One woman carries a cherry on her head, a common symbol of pride at the time: "Don't eat cherries with great lords - they'll throw pits in your face." (center panel)
Where did that quote originally come from? It doesn't sound like it would be Glum's original phrase.
OK. Zagalejo^^^ 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dendrochronology dates the oak of the panels to c. 1460–1466, but internal evidence suggests that the painting itself postdates Columbus' voyages to the Americas. (provenance)
Any reason why we don't mention the pineapple in the body of the article?
That looks good to me. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The enigmatic scenes depicted on the panels of the inner triptych of The Garden of Earthly Delights have been studied by many scholars, who have often come to contradictory interpretations.[57] The complex objects and ideas presented in the work have been analysed in relation to many different symbolic systems, including those of alchemy, astrology, folklore, heresy and the unconscious mind. (interpretation)
This is really nitpicky, but I think these sentences flow poorly. Each has a similar structure (The foo have been...The foo have been.) Would it be possible to recast one of them in the active voice?
Changed now. Modernist (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all of my specific comments have been addressed. I should read the article another time, since it seems that there have been lots of other changes, but I think this article is on the featured track. Zagalejo^^^ 05:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with enthusiasm

  • First, let me apologize profusely for waiting so long after seeing this appear on the FAC page to review it thoroughly. I was thrilled, thrilled I tell you, to see this article here. I've used this painting to give people an idea of what it's like to think too fast in my head.
  • Is this a typo? Belting observes than despite the fact that the creatures in the foreground are fantastical imaginings,
  • A question: is this not categorized as surrealist? (As per the question of a legacy, Sir John Tenniel's drawings always reminded me of this painting. But that's me.)
  • Was this a parable of some kind? "Don't eat cherries with great lords - they'll throw pits in your face."
  • In Interpretations you have a repeated phrase, "Supporters of this view". Can you variate it?

I enjoyed this article, and I thank the editors who worked on it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support Moni, glad you enjoyed it. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I was one of the peer reviewers and find it has improved since and is up to FA standards. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about my fifth time thanking you, but thanks again ;). I'm still toying with your mouse-over idea from PR, and we not have a large enough img in the article body to accommodate it.

Comments: a great effort, a very nice article, and "The Garden" is one of my favorite paintings. Good to see Wikipedia getting such a well-written article. The problems I noticed:

  • About half of the "Interpretation" section is about Fränger's hypothesis. Yet you state that "his conclusions are regarded by many scholars as a hypothesis only, and built on an unstable foundation." Kind of too much emphasis on a scholar whose theories are not particularly highly regarded, hmm? (Indeed, the three books I own on the painting all either condemn Fränger or ignore his theories altogether.)
  • You are absolutely correct about weight, though the books I have devote roughly half of their final analysis to him. The thing is, his analysis and descriptions of the paintings are par none, and most of this conslusions are generally accepted, but his final analysis (the heritical sect) is not. And its that final conclusion only that is not highly regarded. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, it occured to me that this is the case, but by that time I've already posted the comment. Maybe a little clarification is required in the "While commentators accept.." sentence (i.e. "this conclusion" instead of "his thesis"); but then maybe its just me. Jashiin (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just you! I need to tighten this up. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the paragraph is changed now, looks good. Jashiin (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jashiin, I think this is the major o/s issue. Do you have any recommendations as to which sources might be useful? Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC) should[reply]
I'm not sure what "o/s" stands for.. I assume you're asking for sources for doubts about Fränger's hypothesis. Unfortunately I am no expert at all and the only sources I can provide are the same Belting book (p. 17: "[Fränger's] interpretation of the painting [...] had to be based on the assumption, as Fränger himself admitted, that it had been commissioned by someone in a heretic sect - an assumption for which there is no basis, given that the identity of the owner is now known.") and the Taschen book on Bosch, by Walter Bosing (p. 8: "Despite the attention which Fraenger's interpretation exerts on modern sensibilities, however, his basic premise is very questionable. We have no historical evidence that Bosch was ever a member of the Adamites or that he painted for them. In fact, the last certain reference to this group in the Netherlands appears at Brussels in 1411."). Jashiin (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[o/s = outstanding]....Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, I thought Belting's hypothesis - that the central panel depicts the world in which the Fall has never happened - was more or less well known, and thus deserving of more than a passing mention in the article (and surely he must be cited.)
Yes, good point. Working on this. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is covered now. Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pointing man is described by Belting as a possible autoportrait (which would be in line with the one in The Temptation of St. Anthony) - probably worth a mention?
Page no please (I'm knee deep in books, tired and confused. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its p. 57 in my 2007 edition; the last paragraph of "Another World". Jashiin (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a group of people in the lower left corner of the central panel, one of them pointing at Adam and Eve in the left panel - now, I don't remember exactly, I believe Belting took this gesture as a "this is where we come from" sign. I'd say this is definitely notable enough to be included in the article.
  • There's also a snake in a tree in the left panel, a probable reference to Biblical snake. Again, see Belting's book.
  • Can't include a mention of everything in this incredibly detailed 5 paneled work. I'm at 33 kB "readable prose size" at the moment, and its growing. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought these two examples are particularly important (the first links the two panels, adding emphasis on the "temporal and spatial connection", the second provides Biblican context - well, I'm not too sure about the second, might be just a snake :). But by all means its difficult to choose what to include from such a wealth of material; lets say it was just a suggestion, I'll strike it out. It would be nice if you considered it for the daughter articles, though :) Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brief mention of the snake and its symbolic meaning added. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, I think there's too much overlap between "Interpretation" and the sections on individual panels; it was kind of confusing for me. Then again, I realize that writing about the pictorial content of the panels flows more naturally when you add interpretations to it.. eh.
The idea is that the description discusses specific motifs and symbols, while the Interpretation is a general overview of intention, and what the work as a whole may have been intended to convey. I'm aware of this, working....Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that you mention this, it does make sense, and is probably the only way to deal with the problem. So I'm striking this out as well. Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I thought some statements were problematic:

  • the large central panel, which may be either a moralisation on earthly temptation and sin or a celebration of sexuality (in the lead) - the article offers more versions than these two, no? Perhaps it would be better to simply say that the exact meaning/intent of the central panel is unknown.
  • I went for: The intention behind the large central panel is unknown, and theories range from the belief that is was painted as a moralisation on earthly temptation and sin, to the idea that it might represent a celebration of sexuality. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bosch painted three triptychs in his lifetime, each of which presents distinct yet linked themes addressing the history and faith of humanity. - I read this as "Bosch only painted three triptychs", which is obviously wrong. If you meant "three triptychs on similar themes", the sentence needs to be reworded and a reference for "similar themes" provided.
  • in contrast to Bosch's two other great triptychs - I suggest removing "two other great" due to NPOV issues and the fact that there are many more triptychs (and finding a citation that the ones you mention are "similar" would be difficult).
  • Removed "two other" at least. Um, do you not think Belting 85 is sufficient . Maybe should be rephrased as "world triptychs". Either way, I'm not fond of this stubby fragment. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I've reread Belting. He draws a line between "true triptychs" and "merely paintings with three wings", which is kind of um.. wrong? I mean, "The Temptation of St. Anthony" surely has a kind of a narrative, and the outer wings of any Bosch triptych also provide one. Anyway, I think what you suggested here, "world triptychs", would be better than the current revision.
  • Instead, this panel shows humanity acting with free will but damning itself through sinful deeds, specifically sexual abandon - as there are many interpretations and you can't really say that they are damning themselves, can you?
What I meant is that "damning" implies an interpretation of the picture. "Shows humanity acting with free will, engaging in various sexual activities", or something similar (can't think of a better wording, but surely something better must exist :), would just describe it, which is the goal of this particular part of the text, no? Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see now how it could be confusing. I went for "engaging in various ..." as suggested. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to a belief common in the Middle Ages, before the fall Adam and Eve would have copulated without lust, solely to reproduce. - citation needed.
  • The panel shares a common horizon with the left wing, suggesting a temporal and spatial connection between the two scenes. - citation needed.
  • devices implying that she bears a secret. - citation needed.
  • This has led some commentators to theorise that the panel represents the world if the two had not been driven out "among the thorns and thistles of the world". - this is what I've been talking about, either Belting should be mentioned or this whole viewpoint better represented under "Interpretation".
  • The knight's tail curls back to touch the back of his head, which references the common symbol of eternity; the snake biting its own tail. - citation needed.
  • Many elements in the panel are faithful to earlier iconographical conventions of depicting hell. Bosch's innovation was in describing his hell scene not in a fantastical space, but in a realistic world with elements of day-to-day human life. - both sentences need citations.
  • Drawn from Belting 35 cited later in the para, though Belting does say the garden "represents an extraordinary heightening of iconographical conventions". Thoughts? Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reread that bit from Belting and I guess its fine the way it is. Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musical instruments often carried erotic connotations in works of art of the period, and lust was referred to in moralising sources as the "music of the flesh". - needs a citation; and isn't it more likely that music was considered something that people succumb too easily to?
The short para is covered by Bosing, 60. And both are true (music of the flesh & something that people succumb too easily to). Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jashiin (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the second half of your comments related to the density of citation; usually (actually) all statements preceding a ref are covered by that ref ie i don't say: statement 1(ref1) statement 2(ref2) statement 3(ref2); if you know what I mean;) Still these things are worth checking, and I'm working through an audit of all you mentioned. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see it now :) It just occured to me that usually the density of citation is a little bit higher; here things were unclear at times. Anyway, if other reviewers are fine with the density (which seems to be the case?), I am fine with it as well, and apologize if I caused some unnecessary researching. Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, its really a matter of preference, and it was a good excercise to go back and check the refs considering the article has been so heavily reworked in the last week. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not very fond of "See also"'s myself. Anyway we have Category:Hieronymus Bosch paintings. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Modernist added a link in the article text. Ceoil (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that all the issues I've raised above were addressed, I wholeheartedly support the nomination. This is my first time as a FAC reviewer and it is great to know that my vote goes to such a wonderful article about a fantastic, awe-inspiring painting. Ceoil has reacted extremely well to all suggestions, as did other editors involved; all in all, this a great effort fully deserving of the FA status. --Jashiin (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Can reviewers strike comments they feel are resolved. The feedback has been very constructive and helpful so far, but I'm afraid I'll miss something given the volume of suggestions....Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Awadewit, Zagalejo and Jashiin all have substantial issues to be resolved. Bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments just getting started.I am a neophyte on the criticisms and commentary but it reads well. (i.e. I trust that the discussion above is leading to a consensus on this tricky area) Well done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::The Garden of Earthly Delights (or The Millennium)[1] is a triptych painting by the early Netherlandish master Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1450–1516), now in the Museo del Prado in Madrid. - sounds like painter is in Madrid. I'd reword it to "The Garden of Earthly Delights (or The Millennium)[1] is a triptych painting by the early Netherlandish master Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1450–1516), and is now housed in the Museo del Prado in Madrid." Or, put 'exhibited' for 'housed' and maybe drop the 'and'. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Museums_and_collections deprecates the housing, locating and residing of works of art, and similar TimeLifery. I don't really think it is ambiguous, but the comma and "now" could be dropped. No doubt it is nearly always on display/exhibited but it is best to avoid this also. If elaboration is needed, which it isn't really, "in the collection of" is best. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an unhappy side-point, I went to the Palazzo Ducale in Venice last weekend to see his Last Judgement, and the two outer panels were off display, and under restoration. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'Bosch' appears in each of the first four sentences. I know it is hard to do but maybe rewording so at least one can be removed would be prudent. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expecting you, Mr Casliber, given your (now famous!) interest in mushrooms, and the often psychedelic interpretations of this work ;). Working on your so far points. Thanks so far. Ceoil (talk)

Har, couldn't miss reviewing one of my favourite paintings now could I? heheheCheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oh, how I enjoyed this! I've done a string of copyedit fixes, mostly minor punctuation tweaks. Some other issues:

Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be consistent with 'right-hand' vs 'right hand'. Likewise, twentieth-century vs 20th-century.
  • "covered from head to foot in light brown body hair." - light brown, or light hair?
Light-brown body hair. qp10qp (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! Changed. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The central water-bound globe in the middle panel's upper background. The globe floats in water" - this seems redundant (water-bound, floats in water).
Awful stuff. Removed now. Ceoil (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in an hallucinatory depiction of the consequences of sin" - the h in hallucinatory is hard; why 'an'?
  • "A grey hooded figure" - is the figure grey, or the hood?
  • I largely rewrote the sentence beginning "The monster is sometimes" because it just didn't parse. Please make sure I didn't botch it.
  • The giraffe image caption leaves me looking for an elephant, which is doubly (triply?) confusing since there are indeed three animals visible. Could we drop mention of the elephant, since that's covered by the article text?
  • "Detail from the center panel showing two cherry-adorned dancing figures who are perched by an Owl." - 'perched by'? and why is Owl capitalized?
  • Fixed. Capitalised Owl? God knows; the Owl ... scary. I had a fair few owls and bats around where I grew up, and I've always associated Owls with dread. A worrying tell. Ceoil (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, dear fellow, I wonder if you should consider taking the weekend off. I mean for your health. This picture is clearly starting to get to you—and the last thing we want is for you to go the same way as poor Fränger. qp10qp (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but I don't want to dissapoint the Cat, who has expectations. Ceoil (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is adorned by nude figures cavorting both with each other and with various creatures; some of whom are realistic, others are fantastic and imagined." - kludgy use of a semicolon to distinguish from commas; rephrasing could fix this.
  • The caption for the exterior panels image should convey the same uncertainty about the 3rd day issue that is expressed in the article text.
Now reads The exterior panels show the world during creation, probably on the third day, after the addition of plant life but before the appearance of humanity. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That same image impinges on the section header below; please move it to the right side.
  • I'm also on firefox, but 1440x900 widescreen. Of course not everything can be optimized for widescreen, but I don't see that there would be any sort of aesthetic loss from moving the image to the right in this case. Am I missing something? Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because the triptych was publicly displayed in the palace of the House of Nassau, it was visible to many, and Bosch's reputation quickly spread across Europe." - 'reputation' feels imprecise here; aren't you really getting at the spread of his influence?
  • "interpretation of his work can be an extremely difficult and dangerous area for academics" - dangerous? :)
Well yes, dangerous. The realm of conjecture is not a safe place to be for academics. Ok for consultants, bad for academics. It destroyed Fränger. Ceoil (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really come across in the text; you make it clear that Fränger's conclusions are largely rejected, but not until much later in the section, and without any commentary on the impact on his career. No opinion on whether you should elaborate on this, but without a better connection with 'dangerous', it reads as hyperbole (the perils of art criticism!). Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took out the word dangerous. Now reads interpretation of his work can be an extremely difficult area for academics as it is largely reliant on conjecture. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the left panel shows human beings' initial state of innocence in Eden, the center shows the subsequent corruption of that innocence, and finally in the right panel, their punishment in Hell." - there's a disconnect in syntax here, with verbs being given for the first two but not the last one.
  • "E. H Gombrich drew on a close reading of Genesis and the Gospel According to Saint Matthew to suggest that the central panel is, according to Linfert, "the state of mankind"" - Gombrich suggested something according to Linfert?

On the whole, the prose is very good, the images lovely, and the reference formatting excellent. On a personal note, I'm so very pleased that the article introduces scholars (i.e. "the art historian Ludwig von Baldass"); a 'new' name with no context really disrupts the flow for me. Thanks for a really interesting read. Maralia (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these. The article will be much tighter after the suggestions are resolved. Ceoil (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One additional item:
  • The Dürer image and its lengthy caption extend more than a paragraph past the subsequent section header for me. If the bulk of the image caption was moved into the main text of the Sources section, it would help solve that issue from two angles. Thoughts?
Make sence. Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support but I have a few quibbles that I'd like to see addressed.

  • Okay, I minored in art history, but what exactly is a "true triptych"? Probably should explain that.
The reference says: A "true triptych", or "world triptych", is generally considered one which addresses the history and fate of humanity. We had a longer, clumsier definition in the text earlier, but this Belting ref seems adequate..Modernist (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is one of the issues I raised above (search for "world triptych"). Belting clearly forces his own POV in the book, that some of triptychs are "true triptychs" and some are "merely paintings with several wing panels". He does mention "art historians" who use the term "world triptychs", so I suggested this should be used instead of "true" to avoid POV and, more importantly, clarify the situation for the reader (because "world", with the subsequent explanation already included, is easier to understand than "true"). Searching books.google.com for instances of either term, by the way, yields practically nothing. Jashiin (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is only referring to Bosch's triptychs - most triptychs just have a Virgin & Child, Crucifixion etc in the centre, and saints, donors etc on the outer wings. If either term is used, explanation is needed. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is more specific now in defining "true triptych". Hopefully more clear. Modernist (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still see this as a rather POV-ish issue, mainly due to the word "true" (i.e. other triptychs are then, logically, "false", and I'm pretty sure that the line "the three panels in each are necessary and essential to the meaning of the whole" can be disputed (i.e. one may argue that in "The Temptation of St. Anthony" you have to examine all three panels to get the full scope of the narrative), but I guess if Belting and others approve of the term its not that bad. So I withdrew my earlier comment about this. Just wanted to mention the issues that might arise in the future. Jashiin (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cut so "True triptych" is mentioned in the lead only, accompanied by a footnote. Gone from the lower section, which now reads Bosch painted three large triptychs in which each panel are necessary and essential to the meaning of the whole. Each of these triptychs present distinct yet linked themes addressing the history and faith of humanity. Can I go home now please ;) Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Triptych section, last sentence shouldn't that be "altar" not "alter"?
  • Any reason we're going with Netherlandish and not Dutch?
Most definitely! See Netherlandish - Bosch was much too early for "Dutch", and in fact the area where he spent his whole life, round 's-Hertogenbosch, only joined the Dutch Republic very late, in 1648, essentially by conquest, so that it was not subsequently trusted with provincial self-government, but ruled by the Federal government. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, perhaps "spendid" not "splendorous"?
  • MOS issue, shouldn't the quotation from Psalm 33 be in quote marks, not italics?
  • Left panel, any reason not to use "contemporary" rather than "contemporaneous"?
Actually we are using both. Contemporaneous is used to describe the Europeans of the day and what they saw, which is less ambiguous and more time specific than contemporary, while Contemporary is being used to describe travel literature which in context seems okay. Modernist (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't hit me, but perhaps convert the measurements into Imperial units?
Should be both or metric, as even Anglo art historians use metric these days. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was asking for both, with the imperial in ()'s. That's all. I'm too old to learn to think in metric. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right panel, fifth paragraph, the first sentence is awkward, especially the part "earlier iconographical conventions of depicting hell." I think you want to lose the "of" there.
  • Sources and context section, fourth paragraph, the last sentence is lacking context for why this is significant. Why is that particular engraving important? Where is this scene reproduced?
The previous sentence gives the context (or one interpretation of it), but evidently not clearly enough. The location in the Bosch should be added. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, last paragraph, the first sentence is very dense. "...actualized and made empirical regions previously only idealised in the imagination..." errr. do you mean that the areas no longer were regions where artists and poets could imagine anything they wished? I'm not sure exactly what is meant by this sentence and it's rather hard to understand.
All in all a very nice article on a very strange painting. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Ealdgyth, tending to you remaining suggestions now. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support from one fortunate enough to have seen the original. I have made some minor edits, [2] GrahamColmTalk 13:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and ce. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support for an excellent article. JNW (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator For the sake of disclosure, the article has grown from 28 kB readable text since nom'd,[3] to 38 kB, however this has largely been in responce to gaps highlighted by reviewers. A "legacy" section is being sketched here, which will likely add a further 5 kB. Most additions have been commented upon, just remembering B-movie. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good memory; different situation :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 27 May 2008 (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/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights&oldid=1138473155"