User talk:Markwhite01/sandbox

Mark White-Wikipedia Article “Peer Review” by Azvdo.art

The article has a great amount of content! I can definitely see where I need to beef up my article; I need more actual descriptions of my gospel and how it is structured. I think you did an excellent job in explaining how the manuscript is laid out and its contents. Along with an in depth history about the period.

In your first paragraph Ottonian is mentioned, I did have to google “Ottonian vs Ottoman” right away (I wasn’t sure if they were interchangeable). Could there be a link for that? Then at least the reader can hover over it and get a quick zap of info about it.

Visually the pictures are just kind of there, not categorized under a “gallery” heading. Maybe putting them under a gallery heading would help structure them, allowing other users to add to them in an organized way. It looks like an editor previous to your input put them there.

The word “superb” stuck out to me after reading it a second time in the first paragraph. It sounds biased the second time around. Kind of like praising the manuscript above and beyond, that it is the best manuscript, instead of saying it is one of the best.

Is “Reichenau” an island in Germany where the manuscript was produced? Could you link that, I wasn’t sure what it meant when it was referenced, whether it was a style, people or a place? Update: after reading into your “Art History” section I see that Reichenau is a reference to a monastery, no need to link the island seeing how it is on the island and that link is used under the description of that monastery on Wikipedia under “Reichenau Abbey”. Here are a few link ideas that have correlating Wikipedia pages. Some readers may not know the definitions, ie high school kids who are researching, at least then they’d have the option to hover over the words so they can read a quick description, especially if they’re not inclined to do so on their own.

Linkable words- -Ottonian -“illuminations” (can link to “illuminated manuscript”) -Otto III -“canon tables” (can link to “Eusebian Canons”) -Charlemagne -frieze -Reichenau Monastery (can link to “Reichenau Abbey”) Mentioned in last section “Importance of the Work”

Maybe edit out the use of cover due to redundancy?

-Revised- The ivory inlay representing the Dormition of the Virgin was placed on the cover rather than inside the manuscript because the text of the four gospels does not include reference to the Virgin Mary's death.

-Original- The ivory inlay on the cover representing the Dormition of the Virgin was placed on the cover rather than inside the manuscript because the text of the four gospels does not include reference to the Virgin Mary's death.

Question- Was the book considered “symbolic of Christ” because it was so beautiful? I’m wondering if you could better connect that idea.

Also, the use of emperor and Otto fluctuates; maybe start with Otto then use emperor after?

Under Ottonian Period in Art History…“His reign was not peaceful. for example,” capitalize For.

“Artists added elaborate and detailed illustrations.Finally, a cover was added to the book.” Space needed between “illustrations. Finally”.

Under “Ottonian Period in Art History”…the last few paragraphs are spaced further apart than the previous ones.

The last sentence in this paragraph reads funny… Otto III, his ancestors and some of his successors lived in a period named Ottonian and art produced in this time is termed Ottonian art. The Ottonian period started in 955 and continued until the late 11th century.[5] The Ottonian emperors were close to the pope and used his spiritual role to claim a God-given right to rule. They built a palace in Rome to be near him. They also sought to be close to Byzantium to take advantage of their superior strength. Otto III's mother was a Byzantine princess. They also benefited from exposure to art was produced in these other areas.

Consider revising the order of the paragraphs in the “…Art History” section for better continuity, see moved paragraphs in bold.

The Ottonian Period in Art History[edit source] Otto III, his ancestors and some of his successors lived in a period named Ottonian and art produced in this time is termed Ottonian art. The Ottonian period started in 955 and continued until the late 11th century.[5] The Ottonian emperors were close to the pope and used his spiritual role to claim a God-given right to rule. They built a palace in Rome to be near him. They also sought to be close to Byzantium to take advantage of their superior strength. Otto III's mother was a Byzantine princess. They also benefited from exposure to art produced in these other areas.[7]

Otto III was the third and last in a line of Ottonians that were Holy Roman Emperors. Otto was only three when his father, Otto II died, and he became King of the areas of Germany, Switzerland, and northern Italy (modern day designations). The Ottonian emperors felt they were the equal to the greatest rulers.[7] He was designated the Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope when he was 16 years old. His reign was not peaceful. For example, he and the pope responded to a rebellion by mutilating the face and blinding one of his former teachers.[4] He died when he was 21 in 1022.[8] Following Otto III the title went to Henry II and then to several Saxon rulers. The Ottonian period ended with Henry IV.

'''While Otto's reign was not without controversy, he is recognized as one of few individuals that had such a great impact by the age 21. His advisors, who were were talented and well known, did not always agree, but did achieve cohesion due to Otto's character.[4]'''

'''The influence of Charlemagne was important to Otto I following his interest in ancient Roman sculpture, painting, architecture, metal work, and manuscripts.[5] Key to much of the work being done was the connection to the Roman work. Often medieval emperors modeled behavior and art on the classical history.[10]'''

The manuscript was given by Otto III to Henry II who donated it to the Bavarian State Library in Munich to protect the material value in its binding and cover rather than the artistic value. [4]

'''*Otto III giving Henry II the manuscript is a nice way to wrap up this section. I moved some paragraphs into the following section…'''

''*Would the following be better in “Importance of the Work” or adding another Heading for this info? Seems like this info isn’t neceassrily describing the Ottonian Era as much as it is describing/how the work is being done and about the monastery where it was done…''

'''The works of the Ottonian period can be traced back to work done during Charlemagne’s reign. Evidence is found in the comparison of (there’s an extra space between these words in your original paragraph) evangelist portraits in the Lorsch Gospels produced at one of the Court Schools of Charlemagne to the portraits in the Codex Gero produced by the Reichenau monastery. The comparison shows the artists at Reichenau used the work from the Charlemagne era as the model for their work.[4]'''

Since the Gospel Book of Otto III was written before the invention of the printing press it was prepared manually. Extensive labor was required. The hides of animals were dried and processed to make the parchment for the book. Inks were mixed and the parchment lined to facilitate the lettering. An existing version was used by the scribe as the source. Artists added elaborate and detailed illustrations.Finally, a cover was added to the book. For the most lavish books, the cover would have jewel stones and ivory engravings.[9] The Gospel Book of Otto III was a fine example of these techniques.[3]

'''The first letters of a page was considered art. Sometimes the first letter occupied an entire page, with intricate borders on the page and complex interlacing within the letter. Following the Charlemagne experience, the calligraphy was more important to the Ottonians than the pictures because Charlemagne condemned the worship of images.[4]'''

The lack of status of the painters and scribes that produced the illuminated books is evident from the lack of attribution in the books. A few scribes, such as Liuthar, the scribe thought to have produced the Gospel Book of Otto III, were recognized unlike many of the highly skilled scribes that produced these works. Imagine the scribes and artists working in the monastery’s scriptorium for years on one book.[4]

Manuscripts during this period developed at some of the major monasteries, such as the Reichenau, and in schools of the bishops. Historians are able to trace the development of techniques from the early 10th century at the Reichenau monastery to works done there in the late 11th century so that they can identify works from the Ottonian period.[4]

The art produced at the Reichenau monastery was recognized as exemplary works. The origin of the Reichenau works has been traced back to works produced for Charlemagne but with many of the illustrations of individuals flattened compared to the Charlemagne works. The Ottonian works were less spiritual than those from the Charlemagne period. Figures in Ottonian work were presented with a frontal view rather than from the side.[4]

Great Job! I hope this all makes sense and aren't ridiculous suggestions! Cheers! Azvdo.art (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Azvdo.art

-- Megan Vogt's Review: Hiya! I wrote notes that came to my mind as I read through your article.

- The introduction has good, solid and straightforward information.

- "Inscription" in the intro is spelled wrong.

- The first sentence under "The Artist" sounds quite biased as the word "masterpiece" is subjective from critic to critic.

- I feel that the sentence, "Others have suggested that there is no reason..." should be cited. (Under the Attribution section)

- To make the provenance notes acceptable on Wiki, you'll probably need to find more information and form a more cohesive narrative for this section. Maybe write something along the lines of "On September 11, 1815, A. Merli Bremen held a sale in Frankfurt, Germany...". You'll need more sources (I think) for sure.

Overall, the general information is good and the sections made sense. I think that you should go through and rewrite/reword you article, though. A lot of it read awkwardly and at some points, a little biased only because of how you worded sections. The sources you have are solid! Good luck on your project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D380:480:7509:BEA8:F141:CEA3 (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)