Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Hours, Morgan MS 493/archive1


 * 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2018.

Black Hours, Morgan MS 493

 * Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Short article about an exceptionaly beautiful, uber-goth, 15th c illuminated book. I realise the article is slight, but after a few years of exhaustive searching, am confident it represents the totality of research. The article's further reading sect mentions the Facsimile Ausgabe von Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, M. 493, but this is a facsimile and costs about four grand. MS 493 is of a very rare type, very brittle, and not often on display. Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I love old books. With the caveat that I am no expert, some comments:
 * consists of 121 leaves, the majority of which consist --> repetition
 * Yes done Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 14 lines, with fourteen --> inconsistent
 * Not sure - the pages of text are arranged in rows of 14 lines, there are also 14 fully illuminated sides. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Oh I see what you mean. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (folio 121v).[1] --> the lead only needs references for controversial statements, which I doubt is the case here
 * have reduced the lead refs. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "unequaled luxury" --> is this quote necessary? It just makes me wonder who said so. Would it not be better to rephrase?
 * Yes wonder too. Its there to emphasise that whoever commissioned these works had deep pockets indeed. Will mull over. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Its codex are --> codices is the plural but not sure whether you want plural or singular
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * presumably for high-ranking members of society, art historians assumed for the court of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold; --> this doesn't flow very well I think, and ending with a ; doesn't make it easy to improve. How about something like this: presumably for high-ranking members of society, most likely for the court of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold. Given their ..
 * reprhased as "They were more highly regarded than more conventional illuminated books of hours, and today art historians assume commission from the courts of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold'' Ceoil (talk)
 * if we have colour and colourisation, should we not also have favour
 * Yes done Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * some of the figure's -- which figure are we talking about here? No figure has been introduced
 * Clarified Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The manuscript does not contain any family crest to identify the donor, who, given the expense of the book and its dating, art historians assume was a high-ranking member of court;[7] there has been speculation that it was commissioned by or for Charles the Bold.[1] --> this was already described above

Thanks Edwinin for these, and also for your edits. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

A few more:
 * Borders decorations include --> or is it Border decorations?
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * with multiple signature - with multiple signatures?
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * which are probably modern, and found around the corners of the outer edges of the pages --> that comma doesn't sit well with me
 * Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The lettering throughout is reminiscent of the Gothic style, with initials formed from gold leaf on emerald ground, and which typically extend across lines of text,[2] and are in gothic minuscule with silver ink, with gold leaf added for the rubrics --> needs a bit of tidying up, with all those 'and's
 * Now broken down. Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The miniatures are all depict scenes --> is the 'are' here a mistake?
 * Yes Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The most well known illustration --> I'm not a native speaker but I'd write 'The best-known illustration'
 * Agree Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I found the font for the list of miniatures quite small
 * Used the small template as I didn't want them to be obtrusive, but thats fair enough and now changed. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It was acquired by Robert Hoe --> is it known when?
 * Clarified Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if there should not be a little more about the text. As a reader all I get is a link to Hours of the Virgin. I think a brief description of the content is in order. Perhaps even a bit more about the language, the font even. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. The font (blackletter) is now mentioned in the lead and body, as is the material used for the lettering. Re the text; I dont have much, its in Latin and includes the mass of the virgin, the hours of the virgin, and the office of the dead, which are noted in the miniatures section as the opposite pages. Thinking this through. Ceoil (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now expanded. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * More very good suggestions, mostly done. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice article. I support on prose.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Just a few things:
 * Bruges is linked on second use in the lede.
 * suggest the ownership of privileged and sophisticated members of the Burgundian court." I might consider starting this "suggest its ownership by ..."
 * You mention an iron-copper solution, but this isn't sourced either there or in the body.
 * "they depreciated quickly" I might say "deteriorated" as the verb.
 * "It's codex are largely intact," needless apostrophe
 * "colourisation" I might just say "colours".
 * There is a "T" following the second paragraph of "Commission" without a good reason for being there.
 * "worth more per kg than gold," I might spell out kilogram.
 * "and there are no surviving tile or inventory records before the 19th century." do you mean "title" for "tile"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt, got these now. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
A small but perfectly-formed article on a small but perfectly-formed book. A few thoughts below but nothing to stand in the way of Support.
 * Lead
 * "a form of devotional book for lay-people" - link lay-people or will it be commonly understood?
 * "The text is written for use of Rome" - it might be I've not had enough coffee but I'm not getting the meaning here.
 * Librarian speak for Roman Rite, as opposed to Paris, Sarum rite etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks. It's quite possible I'm the only liturgical idiot over whose head that might go! On the other hand, a link might help. KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "and uniquely dark tone suggest its ownership ownership" - delete second "ownership".


 * Commission
 * "MS M.493 was likely intended high nobility:" - "MS M.493 was likely intended for high nobility"?
 * "the artwork is of a sophisticated and unusual taste, and the unusual colour of pages" - to avoid repetition, perhaps, "the artwork is of a sophisticated and unusual taste, and the uncommon colour of the pages"?
 * "commissioned by the courts of Philip the Bold and Philip the Good" - plural "courts" assuming they weren't the same?
 * "Kaiser Maximilian I observed of the Burgundian rulers" - your period not mine, but isn't Max more commonly known, at least in the English-speaking world, as the Emperor rather than Kaiser?


 * Attribution
 * "while the angular and linear manner of the figure's clothes" - aren't we talking about more than one figure, i.e. "the figures' clothes (or clothing)"?
 * "Most art historians date it as as after 1475 based on stylistically and paleographically similarities" - remove double "as" and, for it to agree, perhaps, "Most art historians date it as after 1475 based on stylistic and paleographic similarities"?


 * Contents
 * "The blues were formed from a number of mixtures of ingredients, each allowing varying depths and varieties of colour" - perhaps, "The blues were formed from different mixtures of ingredients, each allowing varying depths and varieties of colour"?
 * "the latter are similar in style to those found in the Viennese Hours" - do the Viennese hours need an introduction? We haven't heard of them before. There doesn't seem to be a bluelink, unfortunately.
 * "It was rebound in the 19th century for the then owner Nicholas Yemenzi" - insert "the".
 * "The book is stamped with multiple signatures around the corners of the outer edges of the pages, but these are probably modern". - Insert "these are"?
 * "They mostly center around the the Mass of the Virgin" - insert "t".


 * Miniatures
 * "Mary, wearing a wimpled veil, and St John stand to the left of the foot of the cross." - insert comma , and "to".
 * "To their right are two gesturing mourners whose facial expressions convey a sense of deep sadness and loss" - plural "expressions".
 * "as evidencing the "unusual, exquisite and precious overall effect of that is generated by using the technique of fixing an illumination on a piece of black dyed parchment"" - the quote doesn't read quite right to me. Is the "of that is" redundant?
 * "Folio 50v: Nativity ("Hours of the Virgin: Prime")" - should this read "Folio 50v: Nativity (opposite "Hours of the Virgin: Prime")", as the others do?


 * Other
 * Note 1 is a footnote, whereas the others are all citations. Should they be split out into two sections, Footnotes and References?
 * Should the book page numbers not read, e.g. 9 Walther, p.363? Just ignore me if I'm wrong. MoS isn't my strongest suit.

A very nice article indeed. KJP1 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why thank you, and for the close reading and review. Agree with all the above obv, and re Note 1 I've removed for now but may reintroduce in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Johnbod

 * "The Black Hours, MS M.493 (also known as the Morgan Black Hours) is an illuminated book of hours (a form of devotional book for lay-people), thought to have originated in Bruges c. 1475–80." - the right things to say, but 2 lots of breaks the flow.
 * Yes, now simplified.
 * the "Roman Rite|use of Rome" - I doubt KJP1 will be the only reader unfamiliar with this form - maybe "Roman Rite|Roman version of the texts" or something.
 * Your change is much better. Ceoil (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also fiddling as I go - changed dates to "The books date from about 1455–80" (per the group article now) which better fits what follows. "Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany" (c. 1503–8)" - apart from the odd way of putting the date, this isn't a Black books of hours in the way described, nor listed at that article. You can see from the beautiful page by page online version that the text pages are normal, but the full-page miniatures have a plain black border outside a gold frame with lettering. They give the date as 1505-1510, I see. Are we confusing with another book of hers? From the article:"In all, four books of hours belonging to Anne survive, including the Très Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne (BnF Ms nouv. acq. 3120) of about 1498, another with the same name in the Morgan Library in New York (M. 50), and the Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne (BnF Ms nouv. acq. 3027) of around 1503." Mind you, she was only born in 1477, but perhaps Morgan M. 50 was 2nd-hand?
 * It seems to be the correct book, with the designation based on "borders with black paint". I'm looking into this for the last half hour, and the parent article, yes needs work. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "The book is stamped with multiple signatures around the corners of the outer edges of the pages, but these are probably modern." What's this about - can't see it in the ref given, although the PDF typed notes mention the monogram of Yemenzi, who had the rebinding done. According to the top of p.2, the Latin shows the book was written for a man, btw, which should be mentioned.
 * Yes, most of the other black books were written for women. Presumably "pro me peccatore" contains a gender indication. Will check with Liz when she is back home later. Ceoil (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, but the claim re a man is in the article now. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "stamped with multiple signatures" now "The corners of the outer edges of the pages contain a number of modern signatures of previous owners, including the monogram of Yemenzi" (who is mentioned above). Ceoil (talk)
 * What's the ref for the other "modern signatures"? Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Has been cut. Ceoil (talk)
 * The confusion was between drop caps and monographs. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The stuff about the expense of blue paint, no doubt true, goes rather beyond what the ref actually says - not too certain this blog is RS either.
 * The blue paint stuff is covered in a number of the sources; will re-establish. The guy behind "A Scholarly Skater" claims to be an art historian, but I suppose that just means he has a degree or something. The article has been incredibly difficult to write and source; the book is unusually understudied. You mention below the $500 price tag in 1912. Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not done yet. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now cited to Maryan Ainsworth and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * ""Das Schwarze Stundenbuch". New York: Old Manuscripts & Incunabula. Retrieved 11 October 2015" - page number please! It's 50-odd pages, & they are numbered. Whatever this says, it's clear from the images that "formed from gold leaf on emerald ground" only applies to the initials, not the "multi-lined blocks of text", which are silver on black.  Where space allows, the green background has floral or geometric decoration, which you might mention.
 * Ok done (the page number and claim re initials). Ceoil (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "They mostly center around the Mass of the Virgin, the Hours of the Virgin, and the Office of the Dead" - true, but sounds a bit vague. The Morgan notes have a full list.
 * Ok, full list now included. Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Let me know if you don't like any of the changes
 * They are all very good; much clearer and tighter. Ceoil (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Morgan PDF also lists a rather more complicated list of owners after Firmin-Didot. Even in 1912, $500 seems amazingly cheap, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Article now establishes sales from the collections of Yemeniz in 1867, Didot in 1871 and Hoe in 1909. Thats it before J. P. Morgan Jr. as far as I can see tonight, will look more next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

These all seem to be resolved now. Re the parent article, am finding it hard to find sources that discusses the black books as a grouping, but am considering adding a "list of" type section, maybe in the style of the Catalonian article on Rogier. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The M Library has "Provenance: Nicolas Yemeniz (his sale, Paris, 1867, no. 71) to Ambroise Firmin-Didot; his sale (Paris, 1879, no. 27) to Labitte; Robert Hoe Collection (catalogue, 1909, p. 105); his sale (New York, Anderson Galleries, 1912, II, no. 2465) to Quaritch; purchased by J. Pierpont Morgan (1837-1913) from Léon Gruel in 1912; J.P. Morgan (1867-1943)." The article says: "MS 493 was acquired by Robert Hoe by 1909, prior to its sale to J. P. Morgan in January 1912 for the unusually low sum of $500. "  The Lotus places the Hoe sale in November 1911, and comments on the high prices that have been achieved. The SDBM ref dates the sale by Hoe on January 8th 1912. Between that sale and the Morgan purchase there were two intervening dealers - Quaritch and Gruel. No one says Morgan bought it in January, though both ML sources agree "1912". With 2 intervening dealers, we can bet the price Morgan paid was not $500. Needs fixing. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, article teases all this out now, except for the eventual price paid by the Morgan. There is another hint at prices on JSTOR, also Lotus. Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Article now says that the $500 was paid by Hoe, whose estate in turn had a very high margin sale, and that there were two dealers before it got to the Morgan. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All fixed - now supporting. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage
I hate to buck the trend of support here. But I have some important concerns about internal consistency and accuracy with regard to the source material, as well as a list of niggardly little reference-formatting concerns that I'm really only including because I made notes about them first.
 * The lead tells me that this book is in its original binding. The Description section (and the sources) tell me that it was rebound by Trautz-Bauzonnet int he 19th century.
 * Its in the Trautz-Bauzonnet binding. Claim in the lead now cut. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The lead tells me that it is "often attributed, on stylistic grounds, to the circle of Willem Vrelant", a claim repeated in the Attribution section. The source tell me that the "anonymous painter" of the Black Hours "depended mainly upon" Vrelant for his style, but doesn't explicitly state that the illustrator was a member of Vrelant's circle.
 * Have more cautiously restated this, per your suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The list of black books of hours in the Commission section is disordered; obviously, there's some debate about the exact dates of these, but the cited sources agree that the Hispanic Society manuscript is the earliest of them. Meanwhile, "Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany" is unquestionably the most recent, but I'm struggling to see why that would be considered the same sort of black book. I don't have access to the Harthan source; does he actually call it that?
 * From memory yes! The designition may be in part because of the black borders visable on that book's page. Hold on - looking. Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ok, have reordered this, and for clarity on this article, removed the Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The Description section gives a 1460–75 date for this work. But the curatorial description cited elsewhere as a source establishes a date later than 1475: "...in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. St. Bernardino of Siena, who was canonized in 1475, is in the Litany."
 * The sources seem to disagree, so "after 1475" seems like the safest claim. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The typed Morgan notes in fact wrongly date the canonization to a date in the 1450s (I forget which), presumably just a mistake, as the actual date is not in question. I wonder how much influence this has had over the dating of the MS in the past. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's actually an interesting point. Not being familiar with the saint in question, I took the typed document's 1475 canonization date at face value. But our reasonably-crafted article on Bernardino of Siena clearly informs us that the canonization was 24 May 1450. Not 1475. Which means that the original date range cited might in fact be the more plausible? It would be nice to point this at something other than the Morgan's internally-produced document; does Walther give us a date (range)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Walther gives between 1460 and 1475. Ceoil (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have a concern about the pigment-cost section. Not so much the value of ultramarine at the time, which is adequately sourced, but rather confirmation that the illustrations in this manuscript actually used ultramarine. If that claim is confirmed in Walther, some rearrangement of citation tags may be in order. Otherwise, perhaps I overlooked it in Blue? There's certainly no explicit mention of ultramarine in the curatorial description.
 * Now linked to Walther, but the ultramarine is one of its foundation characteristics? Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The source cited for the influence of Liévin van Lathem doesn't mention him. Instead, the text quoted in this article begins with "As in the work of Vrelant..." rather than any reference to van Lathem.
 * Walther to the rescue again. Added. Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A duplicate link to Black Hours of Galeazzo Maria Sforza appears in Description (duplicating the link in the Commission section).
 * Ok, removed Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Citation templates are by no means required, and editors are welcome, as you've done here, to roll your own, as it were. However, FA criteria still require consistent formatting, which means it's nitpicking time.
 * The list of miniatures is referenced to the Morgan Library's thumbnail gallery of images from the manuscript; this page does not identify the miniatures. The list of miniatures is available from the curatorial description, and the individual entries (with their facing page) can be referenced to the Morgan Library's speficic pages for each manuscript page. That's clearly a lot more work, but right now, an important part of this article is technically unsupported by its reference.
 * Good call. Now referenced to the curatorial description (for the chronological list) and the Morgan (for images leading titled sub-pages). Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Schoenberg Institute's transaction record does nothing to justify the description of the $500 sale price as "unusually low". It was that, but the cited source doesn't support the claim.
 * Frustratingly so! I suppose it should be obvious so removed. I think wiki has a "in today's money" so will find and try that. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Done - about $12,700 to you and me. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When multiple sources are used to cite a single claim or sentence, convention is that they should be referenced such that they appear in numerical order. For example, at the end of Description as of this writing, a sentence is cited to [9][4], which should be reversed.
 * Ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's still a few of these. Last sentence in Description, list of the illuminations, sale to Ambroise Firmin-Didot. For what its worth, this is my least favorite nit to pick, but I don't make the MOS guidelines. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Guidelines being the operative word. The world has serious problems besides the numerical ordering of citations. Ceoil (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Done however. Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The Old Manuscripts & Incunabula reference is incorrectly formatted in several ways. In particular, the title of the work is not Old Manuscripts & Incunabula; rather, that is the publisher (specifically, the name of the company responsible for the facsimile editions being discussed in this work). The title is Book of Hours. I wouldn't consider this a book-format work, and so wouldn't give it a publication location, but your mileage may vary, and I won't consider that an objectionable detail.
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's some formatting issues there now, including some errant italicization. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The Penn Libraries source isn't directly published by Penn Libraries. Rather, it is from Penn Libraries Manuscripts, a tumblr blog. That said, this particular blog is managed by the Schoenberg Institute for Manuscript Studies at the University of Pennsylvania Libraries, and has some stated editorial control. Even if it were considered self-published, it clearly meets the exceptions of WP:SPS. That said, the name still needs to be adjusted. Also, it has a listed publication date: 5 October 2016. Finally, there's an extraneous comma in the retrieval date.
 * Both now sorted. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If you're going to give publisher locations for sources like the Faksimile Verlag web source (which I don't think are particularly well-supported by general practice), then you need to ensure the formatting matches the formatting you use elsewhere. Here, that would be: Simbach am Inn, Germany: Faksimile Verlag. Regardless, this needs to indicate that the reference is in German.
 * Ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The first Morgan Library source is a curatorial description, to be certain, but it isn't in any way titled "Curatorial Description" and so shouldn't be presented that way in the notes. Based on reviewing the source, I'd suggest "House of the Virgin. Rome. XV cent. M.493" as the title.
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Brinkmann source is not formatted in a way consistent with anything else. Grove Art Online is the website, and should probably be italicized. Oxford University Press, if included, is the publisher.
 * Grove italicised. Oxford University Press should be and is included as publisher. Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Your footnote to Ainsworth is not formatted like the others.
 * Ok, have changed the others to be more like Ainsworth. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Ainsworth note lacks "p. " Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The Bousmanne and Wieck sources do not appear to be used in the article. If that's the case, they should be removed. Separetaly, I have no idea what that Bousmanne source is; if it is a book, it is missing an ISBN. In any case, I'm not immediately able to locate or identify it.
 * Ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the Jenni and Thoss book's publisher is Insel Verlag, not Kommentar zur Faksimile-Ausgabe. The reference needs to indicate the work is in German.
 * Ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The ISBN for the Walther book appears to be for an edition (the only edition?) in German, although Amazon shows me a very English-language front cover photo. Can you confirm both the ISBN and the language of this source?
 * ISBN now leading to the edition I bought a few years ago. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In any case, I think there are some substantial problems with this article as it stands. I'm not foreclosed on the idea that they can be corrected as part of the FA candidacy process, but there are more serious issues here than the reference formatting quibbles I normally focus on, and so I feel I have no choice other than to directly oppose promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Squeamish Ossifrage, this a very detailed and informed review, and thanks. Working through point by point. I think about 78% of the way. Indeed Citation templates are by no means required. Only 1 support so far. Do you want to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Details about why it is interesting that the book was produced for a man would be valuable, along with how the text indicates that (the answer there is that the "pro me peccatore" inscription uses the masculine form of the Latin noun; there's probably enough in the curatorial description to support this claim).
 * The audience for similar works were usually female, as can be inferred from the book titles. Thanks and will incorporate your observation of the curatorial description. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it is worth saying anything more here, such as mentioning the Latin inscription, perhaps in a footnote? I'm not sure this is a hill I'm interested in dying on. At your discretion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think its worth dying on certainly. Johnbod brought it up above, and it raises interesting questions. Unfortunately am off to sleep now, but for sure will revisit this...will ping you when have figured out. Ceoil (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarity added Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that addition is good. However, the start of the second paragraph in Attribution doesn't flow very well right now from a prose standpoint. I might begin with the sentence "The artists ... circumstances of its commission." Then the bit about the Latin suggestion a male owner, followed with the bit about the Burgundian Dukes' workshop. That way the paragraph introduces the limitation of knowledge, then gives the exceptions of what we do know, which feels like it would be less disjointed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree and impemented. Much better. Ceoil (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Based again on the curatorial description, this manuscript was apparently exhibited at the Exposition internationale coloniale, maritime et d'art flamand in Antwerp in 1930 (often, and with reason, shortened to Exposition Anvers 1930), which could probably be mentioned in the manuscript's provenance (and which might suggest further sources?— I'm not sure how comprehensive records were from that exposition). Several other exhibitions appear to list this manuscript in their catalogs based on the bibliography provided in that source: the Morgan Library's 50th anniversary exhibition in 1957, an exhibition in Brussels in 1959, and one in Bruges in 1981, for example. I suspect that it would take a bit of legwork to scrounge up these exhibition catalogs, but with such a narrow topic, with limited sources available, I'm tempted to view that as a comprehensiveness concern. Others may take a different stance on the topic.
 * I dont particularly care so much about exhibition history unless it connects with provenance or accelerates the works "acclaim"; it didn't here. the danger is a list, and I am fine with adding these mentions, but not not going deeper into the specifics of when and where. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My thought here is that exhibition history—or, at least, a history of significant exhibitions—seems to be commonplace in FA-level painting articles (e.g. After the Deluge (painting), The Raft of the Medusa). I'm not aware of any current FA manuscript articles, but I can only assume that the same would apply, to the extent that sources support doing so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well you did say that "I'm tempted to view that as a comprehensiveness concern" and I did say fine (grudgingly to be honest), although as I said this is often used as a pretext for padding in art articles, unless the the shows were an excellerant, which is not the case here. Ceoil (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Other FA MS articles: St_Cuthbert_Gospel has a long & I think full list (mostly in fact BM/BL internal exhibitions), the Book of Kells doesn't. I think they are preferable but not always essential. The curatorial notes are sufficient sourcing; in practice most early catalogues have super-brief entries. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * When you're using a title as an external link, the quotation marks around the title need to be interior to the link brackets so that the pdf format symbol or external link arrow doesn't appear inside the quotation marks (as it isn't part of the title).
 * Hmmm. Have puzzeled over this one, but maybe missing something. Do yopu mean there is a problem with "Das Schwarze Stundenbuch"
 * It's the difference between "Das Schwarze Stundenbuch" (which is not correct) and "Das Schwarze Stundenbuch" (which is correct). The latter markup makes the external link (or pdf format) icon appear outside the quotes, which is considered preferable (because the icon is not part of the title). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, done Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not done quite right, I don't think. Note that there were quite a few of these, also. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Done right now :) Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The Morgan Library source given as "Book of hours (MS M.493)" (note 11 as of this writing) links to the CORSAIR collection catalog entry for this manuscript. I'm not really sure that's where you meant to link, or that the catalog record is itself a reliable source; it certainly doesn't seem to support everything that is cited to it.
 * See here CORSAIR: "amed after Pierpont Morgan's yacht, CORSAIR is a single database providing unified access to over 250,000 records for medieval and Renaissance manuscripts, rare and reference books, literary and historical manuscripts". Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed one statement. Ref supports re Clasps, interlocking "Y"s and sale to Ambroise Firmin-Didot. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Blue: Cobalt to Cerulean in Art and Culture is a book-format exhibition catalog, and should be treated like any other book as far as formatting goes. Which means it probably belongs in the Sources section, with a footnote reference in notes. The book credits the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston as its author, so that needs to be honored. This is also a 176-page work, so a page number for the cited material would be welcome. Based on my reading of the formatting convention used in the Sources section, I believe the correct format for use there would be:
 * Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Blue: Cobalt to Cerulean in Art and Culture. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books, 2015. ISBN 978-1-4521-2940-2
 * Done, but this one was retrieved from Google books, and no page numbers are given. Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I've tracked this one down. It turns out that the chapters in this book have cited authors, so that'll need to be included. The information you're after is in Rhona MacBeth's "The Rise of Blue in Europe", pp. 100–113, with the specific fact cited appearing on p.102. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Fixed ref and added page number. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The title of the Harthan book is not capitalized properly. Also, I believe this is a reprint edition of a 1977 original. Can you confirm the ISBN for the 2008 copy? Is there an edition indicated?
 * Capitalisation sorted at least. Dunno yet about the edition; will crawl through. Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have refed to the original edition. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Note all done except for "exhibition history" section which I am considering. I will certainly add the mentions noted above, but no so sure that there is a valid comprehensiveness concern. Art historical research tends to be cumulative, and i'm not seeing these once off's referenced often in the literature available to me, outside of mentions of their occurrence (ie their is little evidence that they lead to significant scholarship that was not then reiterated in the later, covered, sources). Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

All done now Squeamish Ossifrage if you could revisit. Ceoil (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Thanks for slogging through my concerns. Officially moving to support. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great :) The hard won supports are the most valued, and have generally followed the most productive set of comments. Thank you so much! Ceoil (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

John

 * What are "iron-copper solutions of black ink"? Are they like iron gall ink? I'd like to see more on this. --John (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * John, will look into this, and thanks for the copy-edits. Ceoil (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have found some material to add, but thinking through. Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, iron gall ink, and have added to the explanation of the process, far as I can without going against the available sources. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "Black books were more highly regarded than more conventional illuminated books of hours, and today art historians assume they were commissioned by the courts of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold.[7] The Burgundian court were known to have had a preference for dark, sombre colours, and the black books can be assumed to have been designed specifically for their taste." I would suggest swapping these sentences. It would be more logical to state which court before which members of it. Also is it the case that black books were widely more highly regarded than conventional ones? If so, why did only the Burgundians commission them?
 * "There-after". I have never seen it with a hyphen before and OED has it as one word.
 * The discussion of dating is confused. You say that it was previously suggested that Charles the Bold d. 1477 commissioned the ms, but it is now thought to be later, and then that it is dated c.1475.
 * I am still confused about the dating. You said before it was later than Charles the Bold - now you say it is earlier. As he died 1477 and it is dated around 1475, isn't it the same? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken this confusion out. There was earlier speculation it was for Philip or Charles; more recent research indicates that it was for Philip, as he was the leading proponent of this dark style. He was dead by 1475, so the completed work may have been presented to Charles. Note it may have taken a long period to produce and the range is 'between 1460 and 1475'. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * An interesting article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Dudley Miles, these are all taken care of now. The 1st suggestion was very good indeed with much improved flow. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Support from Victoria
I last read this months and months ago. It's come a long way and looks very nice now. I've tweaked a bit, copyedited a bit, added a couple of links, i.e the easter egg to the Assassination of John the Fearless (terrible article but gives context), shoved a bit of text around, etc. In other words, taken a few liberties, (and feel free to undo anything you don't like), but there was very little to do and it was a quick and enjoyable read. Happy to support. Nice job. Victoriaearle (tk) 12:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Victoria. Your edits were as usual spot on. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support
I don't know how this nomination has escaped my attention until now, since it's the type of article I generally look for ar FAC and am pleased to read – especially when they are as concise as this. It was indeed a pleasure, and I have just a few suggestions that you may want to consider:
 * In the lead, "full-page" should be hyphenated. I'd also put a comma after "miniatures", and another after "New York" at the end of the first paragraph.
 * ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in the Commission section refers to seven extant manuscripts, but you only mention three in this paragraph, apart from MS493. The black book of hours link additionally lists MS 836, Bibliothèque de Valenciennes, but what about the other two? Might it be worth mentioning them?
 * Johnbod might correct me, but there are two problems; the manuscripts are understudied both individually (with the exception of the "Hours of Mary of Burgundy" and as a grouping. Also, only three of them carry the dark style through out, meaning that there are differences of openion as to weather or not some books properly should be in the designation. Therefore, have hedged as "The black books of hours are a grouping of four to five (some books so defined contain only a few pages in this style) extant Flemish illuminated manuscripts so named for their dark appearance.[3]". Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Description: Could this section include a brief summary of how the book is organised? There is information to that effect in the lead, and some further direction in the list of miniatures, but it's hard to picture if you haven't knowledge of Roman Catholic liturgy and are unfamiliar with the Books of Hours and the nature of their texts.
 * Article says "The texts consist of the Hours of the Cross, the Hours of the Holy Spirit, the Mass of the Virgin, the Hours of the Virgin, the Penitential Psalms, and the Office of the Dead", and the miniatures follow the text. I hope the linkage is clear, and that's as far as I have. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "The initials are formed from gold leaf..." Does this refer to the initial letters of the texts?
 * Excellent spot. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "It was rebound" → "The book was rebound..."
 * ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Miniatures: Art historian Ingo Walter is "Walther" in the sources
 * Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Provenance: Earlier: "Yemenzi's monogram of two interlocking "Y"'s is stamped on the central panel of the binding and on the clasps." Here: "Yemeniz's monogram is stamped on one of the pages". Apart from the apparent discrepancy, do we need to have the information on the monogram twice?
 * Have cut this repetition Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No problems otherwise that I can see and I look forward to moving to a full support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian, very useful and insightful, am working through. Re "concise", yes think that too. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All there now, I think Brianboulton Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: my concerns addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.