Talk:Donatello

Archive 1

"Crass fiddling"
accuses me of "crass fiddling" [sic] with the images. So what is this terrible crime that I have committed? JB, I have great respect for your knowledge and experience but I am completely at a loss to understand what you found so objectionable as to respond so intemperately. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I attached the upright tag to portrait-format images, which is what they should have had in the first place (and which sizes them appropriately).
 * I moved the image of David down beside the section of the article that describes the work, which is where it should have been in the first place, to illustrate the text. See MOS:IMAGES, specifically MOS:PERTINENCE ("Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.) Yes, David is Donatello's most well known work (and for good reason). But the article is not so long that the reader has to plough past pages to get to it in this position. It should be beside the text that it describes and that it illustrates.
 * I moved the huge image of St George down to the gallery because it mentioned only in passing in the text and because it heaves all images below it out of sync with the text that describes them.
 * Placing upright on all portrait-format images is a terrible idea - our images are much too small as it is, and most do not need it. No policy says this is a good idea.
 * Placing them "beside the text that it describes and that it illustrates" is a very weak principle, and the David is mentioned in the lead.
 * How images look varies vastly with the kit and settings readers use, & it is very rash to generalize. But I think on most set-ups you left big white gaps, a huge fault in my book.
 * I'll admit I was pre-annoyed by similar changes to another article recently - can't find them now.
 * What the article really needs is a good deal more text.

Johnbod (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * We'll have to agree to differ then. You must be viewing on a larger screen that I have: I see no white space but then again we are cautioned against attempting to optimise article layouts for a particular display size. But I considered the existing layout to be messy and lacking structure.
 * IMO, thumbnails are never going to be adequate, they are a link to a bigger picture. (Well what I really want for sculptures is a life size hologram that I can view in the round. I had seen many pictures of the David before visiting the Bargello but the reality was just so much more than the third dimension.)
 * I agree that the text is too thin, I'll look at what I have that might rectify. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Birth dates don't line up
Several part of the article give his birth date as 1486, while others list 1386. The first date doesn’t line up with the creation of The David. Please correct. 96.19.58.147 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ignoring your attempt to correct it (which I have reverted), I can't see any mention of 1486 anywhere in the article. Could you say where you saw it? Multiple sources affirm c. 1386 – for example https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dona/hd_dona.htm . Please come back if it was not just a misreading. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Michelozzo di Bartolomeo
has been doing a fantastic job on developing the article. So rather than just leap in with something that might fall below the WP:TRIVIA threshold, I thought it wise to invite comment first. At the exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, I came across this: "Michelozzo di Bartolomeo (1396-1472)

Catasto declaration (the portata) of Donatello 11 July 1427

Written out by Michelozzo, Donatello's portata (declaration of debts and expenses) notes that the sculptors entered a legal partnership in about 1425. This invaluable snapshot of his activities and associations also lists debts and payments due in relation to the Reliquary bust of San Rossore and the baptismal font in the Siena Baptistery.

Ink on paper with a modern half-parchment cover

Florence, Italy Archivio di Stato di Firenze (Catasto, Portate dei cittadini, 17)"

I have a (rather oblique) photo of the page concerned, which I could upload and caption with a paraphrase of the above? Worth the effort? Too marginal? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I haven't got to that period yet (or to the exhibition yet). The partnership is certainly important. You could upload to (not to Commons I suppose) or wait, & I'll ask if my sources don't cover it. Say here if you do upload. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a great pic, quite oblique. If you can find a clear pic of the castato elsewhere, it would be better.
 * Another approach is simply to say in the body that Donnatello joined with Michelozzo in a legal partnership in about 1425, citing the castato as evidence and (for WP:V), saying that it in turn is cited in the exhibition catalogue. Which I didn't buy so you will need to check an open copy that it actually does so. Tbh, I was somewhat underwhelmed by the show as it had rather few works of his, many were by contemporaries, "studio of", followers, and modern homage works. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a certain inevitability there! I certainly have sources for the partnership, but I don't think any give full details of that document. We'll see when I get there - so far I've concentrated on the end & the beginning, in a pincer movement on his middle years. I'm doing this for The Core Contest/Entries btw, so have until 31 May. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

MenkinAlRire queries
Moved over from my talk. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi John, I am sorry, it is a lot, but I happen to see that you already done a whole bunch of work on Donatello and I began to read it, and then.... It is a lot that I mention here, but you are busy with it, so I just interrupt from the sidelines. I can only hope these are valuable suggestions for you. I will help with anything you might consider to add, refs e.g.
 * It was really the Early Renaissance yet
 * Er, what? Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, John. In the intro it says "Italian sculptor of the Renaissance period". The Early Ren. is part of the whole, but it is kind of important that he is leading to Michelangelo and Raffael and not a contemporary (but Ghiberti for example and International Gothic ruling), a time, where the artistic principles he helped to establish were already mainstream. And since there is a lemma Early Renaissance it would simply be more specific.
 * Worked it in, just after that. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "In 1409–1411 he executed the colossal seated figure of Saint John the Evangelist" You don't have to take the definition for 'colossal statue' by the wiki lemma (3x life-size?) to see that a 2.1 meter statue is not colossal, even if seated. I admit, I am quiet sensible with exaggerations, since all is super, mega, hyper now. But what name you have for Michelangelo's David then, the terracotta Joshua or these 10 or 20 meter monsters you see on the wiki page? The Saint John is just a bit above life-size, that is it. I think you have to (or should) experience something of an awe to say something is 'colossal'.
 * From Statue: "...one more than twice life-size is a colossal statue.


 * 3.50 m is still not colossal imO, but ok, it's a middle ground ('with an overweight on the side of the overweights'; maybe there is a balance through quantity)


 * "Since 2015 the museum's new displays show this and other statues for the cathedral at the intended original heights." - Although this is true for the figures of the fassade, that was reconstructed in the museum, the statues from the campanile were originally installed at a height of about 20 meters, so if you think about it, that can't be right for them. File:Museo dell'Opera del Duomo (Florence) - 48199144807.jpg
 * I just lost a whole page of comments, because I used a new text editor, that obviously didn't save the file automatically. And I didn't reach the 'Cathedral' chapter yet, where it gets ugly.
 * First, again, the sitting St. John is 210 cm high, plus a quarter of the height for his thighs makes him about 260 cm high standing: this is not colossal. - In the Museo dell'Opera del Duomo they reconstructed the scale and proportions of the original façade, so that the original statues could be put in their intended place and surrounding. (There are imgs on Wikimedia. It is fantastic what they accomplished, a compelling museum space.)
 * The whole paragraph for the cathedral statues is odd, stylistically, but also factual. The statue for the buttress is not lost, it IS the marble David, it is long agreed upon, because it is well documented (see the archive-link to Janson, p. 3ff). - The missing impact of a life-size figure in such a height might be put already here. He immediately followed up with the colossal[sic!] Joshua, maybe with the input of Brunelleschi, with whom Donatello got a commission to search for alternative solutions (gilded lead) for the other eleven prophets that were to be created for the tribuna of the dome (not yet built), but they obviously didn't come up with something.
 * The "public locations" obscures the fact, that they are simply two of the three most important buildings in Florence, the cathedral (religious centre) and Orsanmichele (centre of commerce), and the Signoria (government).MenkinAlRire 21:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "From now on he received a series of commissions for full-size statues for prominent public locations" seems enough. I could add a "very", but we don't need more. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "Donatello was responsible for six of the eight campanile figures" - If you count the ones you named then there are five, and it is the accurate number. I don't recall a il Populano just now, but def. with a Jeremiah. There are six if you count a Joshua by Ciuffagni, that Donatello and il Rosso had to rework into a John the Baptist (without his insignia). Maybe il Populano is one of the two il Rosso made on his own, the Poggio Bracciolini (1419–20) and the Obadiah (1422).
 * Zuccone translates as 'pighead' or 'bullhead', while 'pumpkin head' is the common translation in this case. He is commonly known as Habbakuk, certainly not Jeremiah which is a separate statue (see above).
 * "In 1415 the cathedral authorities decided to revive and complete medieval projects" I don't think, they thought about it as 'medieval', or in any other period.
 * Maybe not, but we do. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "All the figures for the campanile series were replaced by replicas in 1940." Did they really make replicas shortly before wartime? Janson only says they "were removed from their niches for safekeeping. They have been in the Museo dell'Opera since their return to Florence ten years ago" (Janson 1957, 36).
 * This is pure OR - the replicas would have been begun well before, anyway. Italy only joined the war in June 1940. Changed to "All the figures for the campanile series were removed in 1940, to be replaced by replicas with the originals moved to the Museo dell'Opera del Duomo."  Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds much better. If I find something more specific about it, I'll let you know. MenkinAlRire 21:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Michelangelo's David was intended for such a place, but proved too heavy to raise and support." I never read that they tried. For some Michelangelo never had the intention to have the statue raised there, and that he simply wanted to try the block. But it was discussed in the commission that had to determine, where to put it. Botticelli and a craftsman were the only ones who wanted the David at the Cathedral or in front of it.
 * "Proved" doesn't really imply an actual attempt. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, they never tried. And Michelangelo is two generations apart MenkinAlRire 21:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "clay or terracotta" where is the difference? The clay has to be baked anyway, terracotta is baked clay.
 * Some works (not D's I think) are unbaked clay, so the distinction is important. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any example of a 5-600 yr old unbaked clay sculpture? The lemmas Clay, Modelling clay and Earthenware just say it is fired. Glazing is optional. (In hotter regions just sun-dried bricks are used, but I don't believe that the houses last very long.)
 * The main difficulty would be that they are fragile, otherwise I don't see why they shouldn't survive. If Horse and Rider (wax sculpture) can supposedly survive that long .... There are plenty of 18th-century clay survivals, after people took trouble to preserve them. Also 16th-century framed waxes. Earthenware is by definition fired.  Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the wax statuette. But I would doubt its age and attribution and follow Caglioti on this one, who says its 19th ct. And it is deteriorating. The mere possibility is fine, but without an actual example of a surviving raw clay sculpture, the postulate is meaningless. Even the wax statuette, if it were that old, wasn't supposed to live that long. It was meant to be a sketch, a maquette or a model for "lost-wax"[sic!] casting or it would have been fired. But it would be interesting to have another opinion. MenkinAlRire 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Wax sculpture. The British Museum has over 500 objects in "unfired clay", many from the Bronze Age. Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the wax sculpture link. Quiet interesting. Most of the uses of wax was at least not chosen for its durability, but for its cheapness and simple handling (contrary to artist and their customers who want the works to last). The only specific indication of its use as final material for sculptures is "Florentine wax worker Orsino Benintendi (c.1440-98)" that Vasari names. The Orsino Benintendi says he worked in the "family's artisan workshop, which made ex votos (boti) for the faithful who went to the main churches of Florence." Benintendi studied under Verrocchio and signed his works. Otherwise I assume this was a whole other sort of occupation and craftmanship, and that there is neither a connection to stone sculptors nor goldsmiths and bronze casting although they too made devotional objects. Because "Unfortunately, as a result of the work carried out for the church of Santissima Annunziata in Florence, the various wax statues, removed from the boxes and placed in the courtyard slowly melted away and Orsino Benintendi's art was lost." Obviously their designated use and fate. (The File:Verrocchio Lorenzo de Medici.jpg on the Italian page is actually a terracotta bust AFTER a presumed wax model.)
 * ALL other examples are models, sketches and maquettes that have survived. The statement that wax sculpting was "practised by some of the greatest of the early masters(, both as a material to create models for sculpture in other materials and) as a medium to be used on its own" rests to be proven.
 * The German lemma says: "Ceroplastics was already known in antiquity. However, only from the Renaissance period, when wax sculpture was very popular, smaller, mostly painted, mostly comic genre figures and portrait medallions made of wax have survived. The main piece of wax sculpture of the Renaissance period is the naturalistic painted head of a young girl from the beginning of the 16th century in the museum in Lille (Italian work)." (Translated with DeepL)
 * In the British Museum the over 500 items in unbaked clay are for the most part from the (dry and hot) Middle East, Egypt and from presumably similar regions in China. The pieces are mostly very small, gems, seals for papyri and so on. There is one singular find in the search that is actually from Italy: "lamp; trial-piece (probably); forgery".
 * All that said, you made your point that sculptures in wax and unbaked clay were almost always made and some items survive today. For a statement that Donatello, Ghiberti and their colleagues used wax and unbaked clay other than for models remains very questionable. In his later years, when chiseling stone was getting to hard for him, Donatello might even have almost exclusively worked with wax and clay. (With regard to smaller sculpture that would suit wax and unfired clay: as with the portrait bust Do probably never did (#Uzzano) there is also no evidence that he made any (stand-alone) statuettes beside the candle-holding spiritelli for Lucca's cantoria and the figures for the Siena font.) MenkinAlRire 22:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Except possibly the lost homo magnus et albus. Looking at the 3 uses of "clay" in the article, I am content. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Exposed to the elements, do you really believe, an unfired clay sculpture of that height would have survived more (or less) than 200 years? It would have cracked in the first winter with freezing temperatures. It deteriorated nevertheless. MenkinAlRire 23:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, exactly! It was in any case overpainted in white. It's not what I believe, but what the sources say. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How, "exactly"? What I meant was, that the Joshua must have been at least baked clay, since it was supposed to withstand the weather. I don't understand the argument that it was painted. It should mimic marble and probably help with the resistance. It was obviously clear to them, that the Joshua wouldn't last, otherwise D and Brunelleschi would not have gotten the (documented) commission to search for alternative materials and coatings, because the plan was to erect all twelve apostles on the tribuna (Caglioti 2022, S. 37f). MenkinAlRire 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems OR - I'm just following my sources. At this stage we need to focus on things you think might need changing in Donatello as it now is, with you saying what, where and how. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That Brunelleschi was actually involved derives from the commission from 1415/16 that went to both of them to find a solution for the problem. You write as if it was not just Brunelleschi's idea but that he made it. I even read that there was another one in terracotta that della Quercia made maybe under Donatello's supervision (before he mistreated the block that became Michelangelo's David). And the problem was, that the Joshua didn't stand a chance to last. Shortly after its erection he had to be repaired (therefore the commission). "some time after 1415, and remained until the 18th century" sounds just like 'good work'.
 * "Another large-scale sculptural project in the city was the completion of the statues for the niches around the outside of the rectangular Orsanmichele... There were 14 niches around the outside..." - (Might there a be a misconception for the reader about "large-scale" when they read about the Joshua before?) - The niches didn't exist before, they were built alongside the statues. Brunelleschi designed the one for Donatello's St. Peter, the first ever tabernacle in Renaissance style by Donatello himself for his St. Louis of Toulouse, and the one for the St. George was designed without any decoration inside it (the missing depth maybe was responsible).
 * "according to a story in Vasari, Donatello had trouble with his first statue for Orsanmichele, a marble St. Mark" - According to Vasari Donatello had no problem, the guild members did. And he fooled them. That is the lesson from that anecdote. His statues are designed for a specific site, and the guild members didn't realize it, until it was installed at its designated place.
 * "trouble" then, whoever from. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just my wording. (But it was not the only time Do got his work rejected.)
 * With the first bronze statues you forgot the tomb figure of pope John XXIII. from 1421–1427 and the John the Baptist for Orvieto (1423–24)
 * "the Marzocco for the entrance to a new apartment at Santa Maria Novella build for a rare visit by the pope" Actually he lived there quiet a long time, therefore the effort. They were solving the Schisma at a convent. - The dependance of D.s sculptures on the beholder's standpoint is relevant here, too. we don't know on what column the Marzocco stood, but it is sure, that today's bases both for the original and the copy the base is way too big and too low. His toes cramp over the plinth, so it had to be originally a slim column. And he is not imposing if you don't see his claws. But he isn't really imposing either.
 * No pope had visited Florence for 150 years apparently. "Rare" does not mean "short". Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK.


 * ("in the event he did not finish it in time." there is missing the 'what then'.)
 * The wooden cruzifix is def. earlier, mostly dated from 1407-8, it is very gothic yet beside the realism. And look at his face! There is a long way to go for all'antica. (You may mention that he had movable arms, he was used in processions (I guess maybe for reenacting the whole Passion))
 * Stiacciato: "where all parts of the relief are low" - not only low, part of the background can (nearly) just be scratched into the background.
 * Covered now I hope. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "on the base of his Saint George for Orsanmichele." Technically speaking, it's not the base, it is the predella of the tabernacle.
 * I wouldn't call it a predella, and I don't see English sources calling it or similar pieces "predellas". Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In Janson 1957, 23ff, Vasari is translated with "on the base that supports the tabernacle" and the niche is addressed by Janson himself as tabernacle (23 + 26: "base of the tabernacle", 25, 27, ... 4x on 32), but he writes consistently "base relief", and only cites Kauffman comparing it to a(nother) predella. Although Janson, Pope-Hennessy, Poeschke a.o. are calling the niches tabernacle,  but they are all avoiding the term 'predella', except Caglioti 2022 (38: Saint George predella in Orsanmichele", cat. 12.1, 348ff). Functionally a predella illustrates a scene of the life of the saintly figure(s) depicted in the tabernacle. So at least it would be just consequential to call the pictorial field on the base of the niches predella, and especially in the case of the St George. But I think you're right, base is the best term, but base of the tabernacle, not the statue.
 * Re-reading Janson, I think, it would be good to add, that the St George most probably was originally (at least occasionally, Poeschke 1990, 91) equipped with a sword or a lance in his right hand and a helmet on his head, that the armourers and swordsmiths themselves made (after a concept by D). The relief was made afterwards following the appearance of the fully equipped statue (the marble slap was provided by the cathedral workshop in Feb. 1417), 26). MenkinAlRire 14:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And I would argue it is THE "milestone", inventing a new technique.
 * "By 1423 Ghiberti had not even started work, and one relief, The Feast of Herod was given to Donatello instead" - I had to look this one up: Ghiberti probably designed the whole fountain but he was just commissioned to do two of the six reliefs. One of the two de Quercia giot to make went to Donatello, and Krautheimer assumes that the Sienese were annoyed "obviously" about all the Florentine sculptors, not only Ghiberti, Donatello, too (and why did he get the commission orig. for de Quercia?; so all three, while the father and son had worked their asses off for their home town). (1956, 140)
 * a small Virgin and Child (perhaps 1426, probably by his workshop) The V&A cat says now it might be a 19th ct pastiche. You might want to switch it with the Madonna of the Clouds in Boston, if you don't want to name them +/-all (esp. the Padua Altarpiece, the stucco tondi in the Old Sacristy)
 * "Michelozzo wanted to extract himself from an arrangement with Ghiberti" needs a Ref., I can't recall such an assumption.
 * For the Pope's tomb you might want to mention the baldachin. - ("A donkey was purchased to help with transport" That's funny.)
 * Prato: "they are not believed to have actually carved by him." Ref? I hear that for the first time. Anyway "are not believed" is a heavy term, maybe 'by some', and probably by Coonin or Seymour.
 * I don't know if Donatello would have differentiated between putti, cherubs and spiritelli. 'Putti' we all know from Raffael and the Baroque, so it is the term usually used for these post-angels (w or w/o wings) everywhere. 'Cherub' would be a term from antiquity and maybe came in later. 'Spiritelli' is the term I first read in recent Donatello literature. Anyway I think Donatello only had one term for them (w or w/o wings and anything else). And I also presume, every scholar has his term and sticks to it. Or is there REALLY a difference that makes sense?
 * Probably D did only have one term, but we don't know what it was! "Spiritelli" seems pretty popular - there is an early use of it - I forget where. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

MenkinAlRire 00:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Behind the antique term spiritelli revived by humanistic research, there is whole spiritual/philosophical concept, or better concepts, behind it. Appearing as (winged) children they act as mediums between men and god/s and also the afterworld. Each individual has a spiritello assigned to him, each place, a house, the wood etc. They represent the (positive) life forces. There is no coherent system, but the christian concept of angels obviously derives from there, too. So it was only natural, to replace them with the 'original'.
 * Concerning the Cantoria you might want to add the exemplary experience with these two. Luca's series isolated relief plates work is marvelous to look at short range and looses his brillance at distance. Donatello's rather crude work in contrast works the other way around. I don't know if it was Vasari who told it. I could look it up.
 * "he executed the [high relief! of the] Annunciation for the Cavalcanti altar in Santa Croce"
 * now gone, but added to pic caption. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not finished with the Old Sacristy I suppose. It is the most comprehensive work and the only one preserved as a whole. Beside the break-up with Brunelleschi it is hugely important.
 * The bronze David was commissioned for the Medici's old palazzo for a room with a cycle of painted portraits by ... on the walls, and later moved to the courtyard of their new palazzo.
 * Do we actually know that? Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Caglioti 2023 tells about it. I believe there was proof of a series of painted portraits for a room in the old palace, where the David stood on a pedestral in the middle. How good the sources were, I can't remember. I have to come back to you on this one.
 * Caglioti mentions it two times but only as a (strong) guess because there is a similar room arrangement elsewhere. I photographed the two pages and turned them into text. But I doubt that there is room for this here or should I post them here? Otherwise how can I get the .txt to you? MenkinAlRire 21:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why don't you write it up at the article for the statue? Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, the location in the courtyard is only I think mentioned by a guest at a wedding, where it might have been temporary. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the earliest source ("based on the eye-witness accountof Cosimo Bartoli"), and describes the wedding with Lorenzo dM with Clarice Corsini in 1469. But the State Archives and also L. Landucci document in 1495 the David in the courtyard and the Judith in the garden (incl. columns, are removed and placed in the courtyard of the Signoria, where they stayed for the most part of the 16th ct.) (Janson 1957, 77ff). MenkinAlRire 14:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Madonna with Child" I always thought in English one says 'and Child' so noone would assume she is pregnant.
 * Old text, now changed. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "only one reached Siena." Only the John was send from Florence to Siena. He lived there for a year or so, and the commissions didn't came true
 * Gallery - the 'deeper' meaning of the exact structure as it was was to be able to sort the columns, therefore e.g. city first, then exact location, then..., or statue, then equestrian. (In my German version I also have named all images of the Virgin and Child the same followed by its name if there is one.) The years were mostly taken from Caglioti 2022, the catalogue from the major Donatello exhition in Florence, so the dates are debatable.
 * ("Giotto's Campanile" is a brand name at best, I don't like it. It is not his, at least only in part)
 * It's what the English article is called, so presumably the WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments. Some seem to deal with the remaining parts of the original text, others are language issues. In general I'm using modern terminology per sources, rather than worrying out what period people in 1420 thought they were in. If you don't mind, I'll look in detail when I've finished my rewrite. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is one thing you may be able to help with. I have "The technical quality of his work can vary, especially in bronze pieces, where casting faults may occur; even the bronze David has a hole under his chin" - I read about the hole in one of my sources recently, but can't remember where. Does Janson or anyone say this? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC).
 * Hi, John, sorry for the delay. I looked it up, and it seems to be a slight misunderstanding or a misjunction between a sentence: "The cast shows numerous faults and holes," and the close-ups of his head where a hole of about 2 cm can be seen on the neck just under his jaw. But the hole is so crude, it can't derive from casting. Like the scratches on his leg, everything can happen in the cours of 500 years. Of course nothing of this kind you can see today on his "perfect" body. And the sentence above, naturally it has a context. But read for yourself: https://archive.org/details/sculptureofdonat00jans/page/80 (Get an account, if you don't have one (or the book,). You can 'borrow' it then. It's Janson's but an ed. with less (of the marvelous) images. David's head: 35b on p. 296). I didn't read further, but I don't expect, that he mentions the hole later on. MenkinAlRire 22:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. My source, what ever it was, seemed definitely to blame D's workmanship. Hmmm. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But you have read the context? So Donatello is not really out of it. Maybe it really didn't interest him as much as the idea and its concept that was already accomplished in the model. It is said that D didn't cast the bronzes himself, he commisioned bellfounders for them. And the lack of finish, the chasing and polishing, has got him avantgarde status in the eyes of today (like Michelangelo, who criticized D for it and is also famous for his late non-finito works). But again, ironically it is not (as) true for the David. MenkinAlRire 21:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Starting more responses. To be continued. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. MenkinAlRire 22:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @MenkinAlRire - I'm going to move this to Talk:Donatello before too long, but I wanted you to be able to trace my responses first. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)