Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early Netherlandish painting/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 User:GrahamColm 10:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC).

Early Netherlandish painting

 * Nominators: Ceoil, Victoria

c 15th century school largely responsible for the Northern Renaissance. This follows a few years work from both nominators, and ends a long lost collaboration with the now sadly retired Outriggr and Kafka Liz, both of whom made significant contributions to the page. Thanks to, , , and  for their exhaustive help in the lead up and PR. Ceoil (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Lamgods_open.jpg needs more complete source information - artist, date, etc
 * File:Agnes_van_den_Bossche_Flag_of_the_City_of_Ghent.jpg needs US PD tag. Same with File:Nassau_book_of_hours_Folio_133r.jpg, File:The_Mystic_Capture_of_the_Unicorn,_fragment_(2).jpg, File:Weyden_madonna_1440.jpg, File:Looting_of_the_Churches_of_Lyon_by_the_Calvinists_1562.jpg
 * File:The_Magdalen_Reading_-_Rogier_van_der_Weyden.jpg: can we use creation date instead of upload date?
 * File:Cambrai,_Cathédrale_Notre-Dame_de_Grâce,_icône_F_581.jpg: licensing, date and author given are incorrect - should use the info for the original work, not the upload. Same with File:Hans_Memling_025_et_026.jpg, File:Seguace_di_dirck_bouts,_dittico_con_mater_dolorosa_e_cristo_coronato_di_spine,_1450-1500_ca._01.JPG
 * File:The_marriage_at_cana1_wga.jpg needs full source info
 * File:Ghent_altarpiece_at_Altaussee.jpg: can we be more specific on the source? Is this from their website, does it have an ID number? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nikki - thanks so much for these. The most difficult will be the last. I used it for the Alps and had a really hard time finding it (and of course forgot to upload the record!). The closest I can come now - after tons of searching is this, but I'd like to spend some time figuring out which record group it belongs to. If I can't, I'll contact NARA next week for help. Victoria (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Re File:Ghent_altarpiece_at_Altaussee.jpg, I've also found this record which suggests it might have been removed from the Digital archives. For now, I'll remove from the article and follow up with NARA after the holidays. Victoria (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have fixed the other files. Ceoil (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Support: I am really pleased to see this article here, as I believe it is a considerable feather in the encyclopedia's cap – the product of in-depth research, and true dedication to the subject. My only caveat is my own unfamiliarity with the subject-matter; I reviewed the article at PR largely from a presentational and readability standpoint, and I would very much like to see comments from someone with the specialised knowledge that I lack. I will add a sources review presently (unless someone gets there first). Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and again for the lenghty PR. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's very nice of you to say Brian! Thanks again for the close reading in the PR and for your support. Victoria (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod I will be supporting this impressive piece of work, but I do have some comments. My contributions, mainly on the talk page, are noted in the nom. Apologies for missing the peer review, which I kept half an eye on without doing full comments.
 * "the decline of the International Gothic style..." (my bold)- in Italy maybe, in the north the EN style developed nicely out of IG springboard-fashion, I'd have thought.
 * Yes, adressed now. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The period is also noted for its tapestries, illuminated manuscripts, stained glass, carved retables and sculptures." Isn't sculpture of the quality to match the painting rather puzzlingly absent, at least from 1420-1500? The "tapestries, illuminated manuscripts, stained glass" have quite an overlap with painters working as designers, & it might be good to say so - I'll see what is said later.  But there is quite a contrast with 15th-century Tuscany, which produced outstanding work in many media.
 * Sculpture mentioned now in the lead. The overlap is address further down, but considering mentioning it here also; its a crucial point. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "when the Low Countries became a political and economic centre noted for its crafts and luxury goods" - hmm, it was I think the economic powerhouse of the period, wealthy as much from trading basic commodities as manufactured goods. "In the workshop system, art works were produced on commissions from foreign princes ..." yes but this was only at all typical for manuscripts, tapestries etc, not panel paintings. "Religious art in general was not well regarded from the early 17th to the mid-19th century..." - I would have said "Northern art in general was not well regarded from the early 17th to the mid-19th century", except for Durer maybe. Italian religious painters, many now wholly out of fashion, did very well in criticism in this period.
 * I see Victoria has addressed these. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "These artists became an early driving force behind the Northern Renaissance and the move away from the Gothic style. In this political and art-historical context, the north follows the Burgundian lands which straddled areas that encompass parts of both modern France and Germany. It excludes eastern Scandinavia, Poland and areas bordering Russia – cultures that were pursuing their own artistic and quite separate heritage, reinforced by the Orthodox Christianity of Russia." - bit jumbled up somehow, especially "the north follows". Surely we have to mention Belgium here?
 * Yes, Pacht mentions Belgium and all the geography as does Ainsworth and others. Will take another stab at this. Seems to me that some parts here are remnants from a very early version of the page. Victoria (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added Flanders and Artois. Can pipe Flanders to Belgium if you think that would be wise, or add Belgium separately. Also not sure we need the following sentence about Scandinavia and Russia. If you and Ceoil agree, I wouldn't mind seeing that one pruned out. Victoria (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that somewhere it should be made clear we are largely talking about what is today Belgium. There are various places it could be slipped in. Agree about the Central Europe sentence, which strays from the central subject & might confuse the reader. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - Belgium and Holland work best at this point in the page. I've snipped out the other sentence. Victoria (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Illumination reached its peak in the region in the decades around 1400," and "By mid-century, demand for illuminated manuscripts declined" not views MS specialists like McKendrick would share I think - they'd say later in both cases, as far as the top end is concerned. Printing impacted demand for luxury MS very rapidly after about 1465 though.
 * Have made a start on this, but think I need to find wider sources. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've brought out to Charles the Good and beyond per Kren at the Getty. Victoria (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Resolved down to here Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've edited the printmaking bit for terminology, but (quarreling with Nash as cited again) if you are going to talk of opening a new market, Israhel van Meckenem is the name to mention, and he may at least have been originally Netherlandish, and grew up & died in Bocholt, Germany, only 4 km over the modern border, also working in Dutch-speaking Kleve on the border. Unlike the other 2 who were Germans through & through (though Schongauer would be French in modern terms).
 * "Two events symbolically and historically reflect this shift: the transporting of a marble Madonna and Child by Michelangelo to Bruges in 1506, and the movement of Raphael's tapestry cartoons to Brussels in 1517" - the Raphael cartoons were sent to the north to be woven (as the article says lower down), then sent back to Rome, because the northern workshops had pretty well always been the best. I don't think this was a new thing for Italian patrons to do. Nash again (not seen the book).
 * Ainsworth seems to think the presence of the Raphael cartoons in the city were noteworthy and mentions them as influencing styles, so I've tweaked the section only slightly to slip in another source. Victoria (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "A full break from the mid-15th-century style and subject matter was not seen until the development of Northern Mannerism around 1590." - Hmm, that article (mainly by moi) dates the start of the Netherlandish/Rudolfine phase to the 1580s, and ignores Pieter Aertsen & the like, which perhaps it should not. "arrival in the Netherlands" might be better than "development", especially with the Fontainebleau School running from the 1520s.
 * "During the Middle Ages, Gothic and later Romanesque [!!] architecture were the dominant art forms. The 14th century saw radical developments in painting as architecture stagnated, and by the end of the century painting had overtaken it in prestige and demand." - can we just cut the first sentence & find a politer word than "stagnated" which is very arguable?
 * I cut that sentence and the bit about stagnation. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This all seems to have gone. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "the Franco-Flemish Limbourg Brothers" - they were Dutch northern Netherlanders, born in Nijmegen, not Flemish at all, though they worked there but more in France I think. Small "b" for brothers?
 * Fixed these. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Now "Illumination reached a peak with artists from what is now France, epitomised by the Limbourg brothers and later by the Netherlandish artist known as Hand G..." which isn't really right, as the examples are not "artists from what is now France", though most other top artists probably still were. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Trimmed out a bit. Victoria (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "A number of artists traditionally associated with the movement had linguistic origins that were neither Dutch nor Flemish in the modern sense. The Francophone van der Weyden was born Rogier de la Pasture." Hmm, another very touchy issue. The court & nobility I think all used French in company and in writing. Are we sure what Rogier's mother tongue was? That he is first recorded in a French translation means nothing - English and German baptismal registers tended to use Latin until the 18th century.
 * Francophone gone at least. van der Weydens orgions are obviously obscure yes. Material on the different spelling of his and others names is interesting, but very hard to find. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pacht says born in Tournai. Would that work? Victoria (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly :) Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added and tweaked. Victoria (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

More later Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod. Working through these, some are easier addressed than others. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Johnbod - a very good set of comments! Victoria (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure I can do any/much more until 1/1. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry - you've done a lot today. Happy New Year! Victoria (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Part 2
 * "Gerard David linked the styles of Bruges and Antwerp, often travelling between the cities. He moved to Antwerp in 1505, when Quentin Matsys was the head of the local painters' guild, and the two became friends. David's style is more fluid than van Eyck's; his lines are easier, avoiding diagonals in favour of balanced verticals and horizontal strokes, and his paintings often have deep and harmonious colouring." All true I'm sure, but the 2nd sentence comes a bit oddly since the article hasn't been doing much in that way. "and his paintings often have deep and harmonious colouring" is a bit limp - isn't that true of van Eyck too?
 * I've pruned it out. Not sure this is the place for it, and you make a good point. Victoria (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Albrecht Dürer emulated van Eyck's precision while focusing on the secular" a bit odd as his paintings were small portraits or large religious works, & his prints were a mix also, with the religious ones the big sellers in his own day.
 * Again, pruned the "secular" phrase. Victoria (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Bosch followed his own muse, diverting from the Renaissance humanism that inspired the art of the period" - didn't we say EN didn't draw from Ren Hum, unlike the the Italians, higher up? Depends on date I suppose.
 * Rephrased as did not draw from Italian painting. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Reformation brought changes in outlook and artistic expression, as it became usual to depict biblical figures in a more human and approachable manner, and moralism and didacticism increased." - yes, but most importantly the main religious subject-matter of EN painting previously became virtually extinct in the Protestant world as far as panel painting was concerned. There are precious few Protestant paintings of "biblical figures" for the rest of the EN period. It's a complicated subject & I haven't read Ainsworth, but it isn't obvious that Aertsen is an example of "moralism and didacticism increased".  The "mannerist inversion" of his work & the world landscape can as or more easily be seen as the religious content having to take what is really a secondary role to the secular background and genre material.
 * I've rewritten a bit and removed Aertsen because I think it's too specific for this page which should be more of an overview. I tried to stuff too much into a few sentences there. Ainsworth does say exactly what you say about Aertsen, (that he shows an "inversion of the premise of devotional painting") but it follows a much longer explication of moving from devotional to secular. (I do like The Egg Dance) though! Victoria (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. Is "provisionally" the best word later (re Brueghel)? Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Innovations in the handling and manipulation of oil paint define the era" - should the Vasarian myth that van Eyck invented painting in oils be mentioned? Maybe - ok in a note I see- maybe promote? As I understand it oil paint was originally mainly used as it is today in house decorating, to give a tough waterproof cover for woodwork, especially outside. That the EN artists were the first to make it the dominant or exclusive medium for panel paintings should be said, & isn't quite. The benefits are nicely covered, but it might be mentioned that it was now usually necessary to paint in several stages, often days apart.
 * I've too wondered whether we should slip Vasari in (also on the to do list!) and have added it as a note on the first mention of van Eyck's use of oils. Haven't developed the rest though. Victoria (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes its better now! Ceoil (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tweaked round here to "The innovations of Campin, van Eyck and van der Weyden established naturalism as the dominant element in the style of 15th-century northern European painting" - "motif" is usually best avoided, imo. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Most surviving panels are painted on both sides" - "most" surprized me; should once except polytch panels from this?
 * Clarified as many surviving panels are painted on both sides or with the reverse bearing family emblems, crests or ancillary outline sketches. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know why we have 2 decent articles on Glue-size and Tüchlein, which are surely the same thing? "a technique usually known by the German term tüchlein" - I'd query that (for English). The NG don't I think use it at all.
 * That was on a to do list for a while; both articles had taken different approcahes so thankfully the now merged article is double what we had with either. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Will check that some time. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "even the more affluent patrons had little say in the design of the final product.[60]" Hmm. Usually we just don't know, but there are often signs that, as you would expect, those paying could if they wanted have a considerable influence.
 * Presumably they requested the specific saint(s), setting and asked that they might appear in it. But cut, it was a weak statement. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see Ainsworth has stuff on this. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, she does. Thought it was in. Will either try to find and retrieve or rewrite. Victoria (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's still in the "Patronage" section: "Members of the merchant class typically commissioned smaller devotional panels, containing specifically desired themes, images or motifs.[6] A different process applied to the upper end of the market.[7]" > I think for an overview this is probably fine, but could expound more in the diptych/triptych section if you think necessary and not too duplicative. Victoria (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I spun out more in long series of edits, but can be seen here. Victoria (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Although it ensured a high level of quality of membership it drew from a narrow pool as the self-governing bodies usually granted membership to wealthy applicants"- not very clear what this is saying.
 * a self-governing body that tended towards other wealthy applicants, thus drawing from a narrow pool. The last bit could probably go. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "continue to produce variations of his original designs without informing patrons of the master's death." - was this that common? In the very small cities you'd think the death of a master would be known to customers anyway.
 * I meant more for internation trade, but it does need to be clarified, if not cut. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cut for now. Victoria (tk) 21:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "These painters sold much of their work during the six-week fairs in Bruges and Antwerp, as well as selling out of their workshops.[69]" - and working uncredited for other more popular masters. At least in later periods this was probably the most common.
 * I see Wehwalt is on to this bit, so I'll leave it to him. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Specific works were not usually produced on commission;" - should specify "smaller works", and possibly common manuscript titles. Not true for big altarpieces.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Burgundian dukes tended towards extravagance" - sounds a bit limp! They were all VERY extravagant, but could afford to be.
 * Sly dig, now removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "While Early Netherlandish paintings were not so heavily lined with gold that they had intrinsic value, they were perceived as being of the first rank of European painting" - messy. What 'lining'. I see what is meant but not well put. Also "The consolidation of ducal households under Burgundian rule created a large class of courtiers and functionaries" needs a bit of clarifying. The Count of Holland was not a Duke etc.
 * Started to rephrase but could be better: While Netherlandish panel paintings did not have intrinsic value as did for example gilded sculpture, they were perceived as precious objects and in the first rank of European art. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the example to "objects in precious metals", as the recoverable gold from gilding wasn't that much, and the non-recyclable materials for paintings were probably more expensive. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The paintings of the first generation of Netherlandish artists are often characterised by the use of symbolism and biblical references, typically expressed through iconography". Bit limp - how else would it be expressed?  Also "Each of these artists tended towards the dramatic,..."  and "realism appears to blend with symbolism" - "symbolism is expressed through realistic detail" maybe, or cut the next sentence pretty much says that.
 * All reworded now. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "From the 16th century portrayals of the life of Christ tended to be centred on the iconography of the Man of Sorrows" - earlier than that surely?
 * 15th century Netherlandish portrayals... but not very happy with it. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Part 3
 * error message at note 41
 * Not seeing this, and probably no longer note 41. Is it still there? Victoria (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's sorted Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "According to art historian Susie Nash, the region led the field in almost every aspect of portable visual culture, "with specialist expertise and techniques of production at such a high level that no one else could compete with them"" - that would make a Florentine snort, now or then. Does she limit it by period or area? Perhaps not too contentious for after 1500 in northern Europe (and esp. say after 1550), but very much so for all Europe in 1430 I'd say.
 * Early 16th century. Ceoil (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "... whereas ducal patrons commissioned fewer portraits. Those that were commissioned functioned to document lines of succession, such as van der Weyden's portrait of Charles the Bold; or for betrothals as in the case of van Eyck's lost Portrait of Isabella of Portugal" Hmm. "fewer" than who? There are, I'm pretty sure, more 15th century versions of portraits of Phillip the Good than of anyone else.  "document lines of succession" sounds a bit odd - they had family trees, illuminated or not, for that. "celebrate" maybe. What is noticeable about French & Netherlandish royal portraits is that they were slow to take up the Italian lead in making royal portraits an extra-grand hieratic genre, which started in Italy in fresco, & moved to oil. The portaits of Philip (and his circle of magnates) look pretty much like those of merchants, except in the Rogier miniature you illustrate. Don't know if sources cover that. I might have something.
 * Okay, I'll re-read the source. Victoria (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tweaked somewhat according to the source I have and attributed. Victoria (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorted. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * " Van der Weyden designed tapestries, though few survive" - makes it sound like he was the only one, but weren't most tapestries with elaborate scenes designed by painters, even if we don't know who? You say that below. Vrancke van der Stockt did some, and later on Bernard van Orley was a specialist.
 * Seems to have gone, so ok. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Single leaf miniatures - the way the Christus example is placed, and is followed by "These artists", makes it sound as if he is one of the Paris boys. Clarification & maybe rearrangement needed.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Philip the Good, the latter of whom collected more than a thousand illuminated books before his death" - indeed, which seems to have been a far bigger number than any previous secular illuminated library, and he encouraged his circle like Louis de Gruuthuse to collect, who in turn influenced Edward IV when he stayed with him in exile. A bit more might be added (I could help here).
 * Yes, have been searching for more on this but have found little so far. Ceoil (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just read about this! In Kren maybe? Will check. Victoria (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the very fat: Kren, T. & McKendrick, Scot (eds), Illuminating the Renaissance - The Triumph of Flemish Manuscript Painting in Europe, Getty Museum/Royal Academy of Arts, 2003, ISBN 19033973287, which covers this. Also McKendrick, Scot; Lowden, John; Doyle, Kathleen, (eds), Royal Manuscripts, The Genius of Illumination, 2011, British Library, ISBN 9780712358156, which is very full on Edward IV. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason I'm able to read Kren online (at least for now!) and I've taken notes that I'll stream in later tonight or tomorrow. I think the intro has a good overview that can be used here – not sure how much detail to use. Won't know until I start digging in. At hand (and not yet consulted) I have: Husband, Timothy. (2008). The Art of Illumination: The Limbourg Brothers and the Belles Heures of Jean Berry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13671-5 which from what I remember is quite detailed but might also have a useful overview. Victoria (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, important point, have spun it out a bit. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok sorted nicely Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Limbourg brothers's ornate Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, perhaps marks the high point of illumination" - this whole para is rather oddly placed, as they were right at the start of the period, and worked for a French Valois. One could move earlier and say they marked the emergence of EN illuminators as top dogs perhaps?
 * Rejigged somewhat. Ceoil (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "By the early 19th centuty inserts had again become fashionable, this time amongst connoisseurs. Prints and originals were highly sought after, a revival that helped the rediscovery of Netherlandish art in the later part of the century." "inserts" need clarifying, & the whole thing might need rewording. How do the prints relate? They weren't normally copies of miniatures, if original prints are meant. Manuscript collecting was much less subject to fashion than paintings, & MS in a library were much safer than paintings on a wall.
 * Unsure about this - maybe shove to a note? I haven't read that source in a while, so will have a look. Victoria (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-read the source - apparently it became popular to cut the paintings and even the margins from the books, for example John Ruskin writes in his diary about cutting up missals. After libraries were looted during the French Revolution a large number of books made their way to the open market in England and it became fashionable to cut out the images. Probably worth keeping; have reworded a bit. Victoria (tk) 16:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've edited to "During the early-19th-century collecting cut-out 15th and 16th century Netherlandish miniatures or parts of them in albums became fashionable amongst connoisseurs such as William Young Ottley, leading to the destruction of many manuscripts." then next sentence as before. I don't think inserts is the right word here. There's a good article on Ruskin et al somewhere - his albums survive. The antiquarian book trade is still cutting up intact books of hours, though not top-quality ones - naughty of them. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that's better. Ruskin's albums are in a museum in the Isle of Wight - if I remember correctly. Thanks for sorting this. Victoria (tk) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Tapestry: "During the mid-15th century tapestry was among the most sought-after artistic product in Europe" "Sought-after" is a bit lame. It was the most expensive 2D form, and if only because of that the most prestigous, and this remained the case till painting overtook it around 1500 with the most advanced patrons, but stick-in-the-muds like Henry VIII preferred tapestry for decades after that. It was also the largest and most visible in palaces. The expense came from the size and the need for a large input of highly-skilled labour, and expensive raw materials, extremely expensive ones once precious metal thread get used. One might also say it played against the strengths of EN painters, not being a medium for precise realistic detail.
 * expensive now used. Do you know of sources that mention "against the strengths" etc, would be very interested to see. Ceoil (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added a bit more. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added "prized" though not entirely sure that's the right word either, but it can be changed. Perhaps either Cavallo or Souchal might have something about "against the strengths" etc from the above comment, but I can't download files at the moment or read long documents online (very fussy computer!) and so can't get to those. I did go to the library today with hope of finding something but came up empty (but did come away with a decent overview book about Medieval and Renaissance art which might be helpful). Victoria (tk) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Triptychs and altarpieces/diptychs: I think this needs to distinguish more clearly between large works for churches, and smaller private works, which ENP was I think the first to make common (influenced by Cretan School mass-produced icons?). The Braque Triptych is only 41 cm / 16 inches high, and folded up would fit in a carrier bag. Of course the whole matter of purpose & usage is a bit muddy through lack of evidence. There is a distinction between an altarpiece (which obviously needs an altar) and a small devotional work used to say prayers at home, and perhaps functioning as an altarpiece on occasion, for example if someone was very ill, & a priest came round to say mass.  The small size (mentioned) and private nature (not quite) of most diptychs needs bringing out more - "diptychs typically functioned as less expensive and more portable altarpieces" - needs a rejig I think. "Being able to close the wings afforded protection of the inner images" - and they could be taken when travelling, especially important for the very mobile elite, and many merchants.
 * This section needs a bit of a rehaul, agree. Ceoil (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tried to spin this out a bit without adding too much detail, . Can do something similar for triptychs if necessary, or move this edit there. Victoria (tk) 02:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, we say Preoccupied with religious subject matter, they come in two broad types: smaller, portable private devotional works, or larger altarpieces for liturgical settings.[126] Ceoil (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Portraiture: mention the Arnolfini Portrait? It may not have had much influence for decades, but is rather an exception to some things being said likewise Rolin Madonna, which takes the donor portrait to rather a new level.
 * Yes, probably. Not gotten to it yet. Victoria (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, done. Another long series of edits, and I trimmed away mention of Rolin in an earlier section so as to avoid repetition. Edits are here. Victoria (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, though personally I'd drop Panofsky's "which he perhaps painted as a witness to and certificate of a betrothal" which nobody seems to believe these days. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Got a little carried away, it's gone now. Victoria (tk) 17:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Netherlandish artists were responsible for the move away from the profile view, the standard since Roman coinage and medals" Hmm, bolded bit seems very dubious to me - a not very effective full frontal view of the face was standard for medieval coins and usual in portraits in illumination and painting (eg the Westminster Richard II though there is the prifile Wilton Diptych). But a variety of angles were used in narrative scenes, & also Virgin & Childs. Looking at for example Matthew Paris, Meister Bertram or Duccio on Commons shows this. Theodoric of Prague painted imaginary portraits of religious figures with a variety of facial angles before about 1380, mostly 3/4s (Commons). It was the profile portrait that was an Italian Quattrocento fashion, imitating Roman coins, which the north largely ignored.
 * One of us will work on this. Victoria (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I cut this in the end. Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Landscape: I think 2 things need adding - 1) the Hand G Turin/Milan landscapes, mostly in the tiny bas de page, which Kenneth Clark & others have seen as huge leaps forward, hardly caught up with before 1600 and 2) the calendar labours of the months in books of hours, which is where EN landscape painting really developed, mentioning the very famous Tres Riches Heures calendar scenes at the start of the period, but also Simon Bening right at the end of the period. He still seems to have been producing miniatures during Brueghel's early career.
 * Yes, added the early part. Forgot to check Pacht for Bening but seem to remember reading it. Will return to this. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Bening - very interesting, thanks for mentioning - managed to sneak in Grimani Breviary too. Victoria (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, done, Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relationship to the Italian Renaissance: The biggest difference, I'd say, is that the ENP didn't have the interest in reviving classical style that was so crucial in Italy - overwheming on someone like Mantegna.
 * Answered below. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Italian influences on Netherlandish art are first apparent in the late 1400s, when some of the painters began to travel south where Mannerism was by then the predominant style." summat wrong here. "Mannerism" proper begins about 1520-30 in Italy, & took a deal longer to impact the Netherlands. The very confusing Antwerp Mannerism is really 2 styles - one in painting from c 1500, another in architecture from about 1540 (that actually reflected Italian Mannerism, sort of). Or so our articles say, I think correctly. "the late 1400s" is 1405-1410 per MOS.
 * Will have to trawl through history or rewrite; somewhere I'd written that the influence was circular > Netherlands to Italy and then Italian influences back to Netherlands. Essay in Ainsworth says (with extensive examples) that the classical style was shown in painters such as Gossaert's Adam and Eve. I think this should still be worked in somehow, but won't get to it immediately. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, took a crack at this (result here after many edits). Not sure it works and can be reverted if wrong, but I wanted to close the circle so to speak. Victoria (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck above. I think it needs some more work. Will try to get to it tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Took another crack at it, . Victoria (tk) 17:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Iconoclasm. Technically the Reformation was not a schism (unlike the Catholic/Orthodox split) as there were significant doctrinal issues. To Catholics the Orthodox were schismatics, but Protestants heretics. Needs a link to The Reformation and art (mostly mine) & other things aren't right. I'm happy to tackle this for your approval.
 * That would be greatly appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know if more refs needed. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this - can't get to these pdfs either! Victoria (tk) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Documentation: Adriaen Isenbrandt is a classic case, worth a mention maybe - Bruges records show he was an important figure but there are no clearly documented works & for a long time art historians tended to attribute everything unknown of quality from the period to him, but now he tends to get nothing. We have a lopsided view of Aertsen because virtually all his Antwerp altarpieces went in the brief Calvinist coup there.
 * Yes, had this in at one point but now lost in the extensive history. I've added where you suggested but not sure if it works there. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "By the early 17th century, no collection of repute was complete without 15th- and 16th-century northern European works; the emphasis however tended to be on the Northern Renaissance as a whole, more towards the German Albrecht Dürer, by far the most collectable northern artist of the era" - no northern collection maybe, though I'm not so sure. I don't think Italian collectors felt the need, or had the means to easily fulfill it. EN paintings people liked were often attributed to Durer, btw.
 * Phew, nearly there! I'll finish tonight.
 * Thanks. These are very substantial and insightful comments; will take quite a while to work through, source and incorporate, but I think are very worthwile and will greatly improve the article. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the art historians in the last 2 sections seem to need links, or 2nd links.
 * Yep, done. Victoria (talk)


 * I think that's it for now. I hope to review the changes tomorrow & will maybe ce & add per above. But a very thorough piece of work you should both be proud of. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod! I thought I could get to these today or tonight but my computer went belly up earlier today and I'm working to restore. Hopefully tomorrow I'll be in full working order again. Victoria (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A few of these points now addressed. I'll try to get through the ones I have sources for as soon as possible. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One more: there are two Ainsworth (1998)s - use a & b perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've bolded the start of my o/s points, if only for my own convenience. I think everything else sorted - nothing crucial left anyway. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod, that's helpful. Thanks for the catch on the two Ainsworths! Victoria (tk) 21:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support The couple of remaining points are minor & can be sorted later. Very happy to support (though I've edited the article a bit more than when I began my comments). Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod, for the support and for the insightful review. Much has been added and clarified and the article is better for it. I've sprinkled a few comments above as to why I couldn't get to some of the sources to clear a few of the points. Victoria (tk) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This was a very rewarding review, thank you. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt A long article so I will do this in tranches, but it seems a very worthy one. Here's the first set. :


 * "sometimes known as the Flemish Primitives" Consider switching this and the following clauses. Could we say "the artists active …" or does the "the" make it over inclusive?


 * "It lasts at least" Consider "The period of their work lasts at least …"
 * Fixed. Victoria (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Early Netherlandish painting overlaps" perhaps add "in time"
 * Fixed. Victoria (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * " the Renaissance humanism" consider striking "Renaissance" and piping to the full term. It's a repeat use from earlier in the sentence.  The cognoscenti will bet that it's hidden bund the pipe, those who do not know of it will be just as able to learn about it by clicking, and won't miss it otherwise.
 * Looks like Ceoil got this. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "artists attached to the French court" Is there a one word thumbnail that can be used to describe these artists? Conservative?  Traditional?
 * Added "lavish". Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "one that reflected the visible rather than the metaphysical world" I'm not sure reflected is the best word. Possibly "depicted"?  That's a surprisingly useful word.
 * Used "depicted". Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Or if that's too much, then "new, larger market" or some such.
 * "and prints, both engravings and woodcuts found a new market" Some means should be found of telling the reader that this was a larger market at a smaller cost than previously, but that doesn't all have to be said, the reader should take a hint and understand it.  Possibly call it a "new mass market"?
 * "Mass market" works. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "transporting of a marble Madonna and Child by Michelangeloto Bruges in 1506,[13] and the transport" Too much transporting. Suggest "arrival" for one of them.
 * Ceoil fixed. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "a plethora of copies" You mean like reproductions of earlier works (something I as a reader unversed in topics of art would assume?)
 * Clarified that works painted by the earlier generation were widely copied. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The 14th century saw radical developments in painting and by the end of the century painting had overtaken it in prestige and demand." I think there's a problem in the comparison.
 * Ceoil got this. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you toss a date into the discussion of the Turin-Milan hours?
 * Yep, good catch. Ceoil added it. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "he was allowed more time and given far more scope" Maybe, "it allowed him more time and more scope … "
 * Ceoil fixed it. Victoria (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the structure of the paragraph beginning "A number of artists". Following the discussion of Marmion, it is unclear if the next sentence is intended to refer to Marmion and his times or generally to the time when the EN painters were active.
 * More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt! Getting to them slowly. Victoria (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have some of these, working...Ceoil (talk)
 * Resume second tranche, I'll have the third and final done late today or tomorrow.
 * I would link Bosch in "Chronology". Since you describe him as one of the most important of the EN painters, I think it's worth another link.
 * Done. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * " but rather courted the artists themselves" The "rather" gives me pause. "also"?
 * I trimmed it out. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Guilds
 * "Overall, panel painters enjoyed the highest level of protection" What kind of protection? Obviously guilds tend to be anti-competitive, but it's a bit unclear what is meant by "protection" Ditto the regulations (for some reason or other that passage from Meistersinger where David explains the rules keeps going through my head). Possibly a hint to the reader of what they were trying to do by regulating.  Assure quality?  Keep out competitors? Both or neither?
 * Both but mainly the latter. Only local guild members could sell in a city. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can spin this out. For instance in Bruges manuscript illuminators weren't allowed to use oils whereas panel painters could. And, as Johnbod says, selling was strictly regulated. Victoria (tk) 13:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarified here, I hope. Victoria (tk) 17:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * " A master had to serve an apprenticeship in his region," I'm not sure the tense is right here. Wouldn't it be "had to have served", since it has to happen before he is a master.
 * Tweaked. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "that tended towards other wealthy applicants" Perhaps, "that tended to favour wealthy applicants"
 * "Workshops typically consisted of a family home for the master and lodging for apprentices, who were either starting out and gaining experience, or fully trained journeymen who had not yet paid the dues required to establish their own workshops." This implies that journeymen are apprentices, which (though my knowledge of guilds is limited), I understood not to be the case. Perhaps "Buildings with workshops also often had a residence for the master and his family, and lodging for his assistants, who were either apprentices starting out and gaining experience, or fully trained journeymen who had not …" If accurate and verifiable of course.
 * Yes, though I'm not sure a journeyman was quite regarded as "fully-trained". They were perhaps the undergraduates of the field, or maybe the masters students... Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Johnbod. Better to trim out mention of journeymen so as not to confuse. Victoria (tk) 13:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Simplified here. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The term "first rank" is repeated close to itself in the last pp of section,
 * I've trimmed out that last sentence. Not sure we need it. Will see what Ceoil thinks. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Patronage
 * " a great rise in international trade and domestic wealth" Great rises, possibly?
 * Yes, tweaked. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph, it is not clear if what is being talked about is a wholesale or retail process.
 * Mostly retail, as far as we know. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Art markets as such didn't exist in the early part of the period and only began toward the end of the period. Paintings were either commissioned directly, sold from workshops or stalls during annual fairs. In that sense it was retail, and I'm not completely convinced, though a little conflicted about it, that we need to spin too much more. If necessary, would be fairly easy to do. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Although less expensive cloth paintings (tüchlein) were more common in middle-class households, but records show a strong interest in domestically owned religious panel paintings" The but is causing a problem in sentence structure.
 * Yep, copy/paste error. Thanks for catching it! Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Iconography
 * "Groups of symbols were employed such that, seen as a whole, they "appear to enact the meanings they symbolise."[83] " Not clear on what this means.
 * Difficult to explain, hence the quotes. I've pulled it and replaced. Hopefully slightly more clear? If not, will have another go. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "This blend of the earthly and heavenly evidences his belief" I think you should clarify it is Van Eyck you are referring to.
 * Yes, thanks for pointing out and done now. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "while the very wealthy could also build churches (or extent existing ones)" extent?
 * Fixed. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Those who could afford to commissioned donor portraits" does this differ from the inclusion of the donor as one of the saints, mentioned earlier? Or are you saying the donor's (or wife's) features are given to the Mary in the painting?
 * Yes, with overlap. A donor portrait most often shows the donor(s) in their modern dress, typically kneeling. Giving a sacred figure the features of a modern person was mainly restricted to royalty (or near-so), most often in small diptychs etc, not to be seen outside the palace. But in a piece for a church you wanted your portrait visible but distinguished from the sacred figures. Other works had portraits among the less specific figures in a scene, but usually in modern dress. All a bit complicated to explain here, but covered in the article. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Formats
 * "but also as form of indulgence." May I assume that this manner of marketing went out with the Reformation?
 * Not entirely, indulgences carried on in Catholicism, but you couldn't buy them and they pretty much cease to be a factor in art history. The illuminated MS was a very narrow market by the time of the Reformation, but prints took over. I expect you can still get modern printed images which carry indulgences if the prayers given are recited, but the rates have seen considerable deflation since the heady days of the 15th century. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * " tapestry was among the most expensive artistic product" should be products? (sorry, I'm doing this offline and will cut and paste when I'm done)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * singular seems right for a type, but some rephrasing might be better. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And the final comments
 * "relatively few of Italian manuscripts" superfluous "of"?
 * "By the early-19th-century inserts had again become fashionable, this time amongst connoisseurs." You mean by the collecting of EN originals, right? There wasn't a revival in production?
 * "Isabella of Valois and Isabeau of Bavaria and Philip the Good" and … and.
 * "pointedly rejected" I'm not sure I understand why it is "pointedly" and thus, for me anyway, the word did not add anything to my understanding.
 * Diptych
 * "They consisted" The problem with this is the subject of the previous sentence is "diptych format"
 * "In the workshop system some panels were interchangeable, and the religious panels may have been paired with newly commissioned donor panels." the word panels appears three times in this sentence, also once in the preceding and subsequent ones. Is there any way to lower the frequency?
 * " popular since Roman coinage and medals and popularised" Ahem. I did see the discussion above re coins, and I don't know enough about medieval numismatics to comment much.
 * "Yet the gaze of the sitter rarely engages the viewer" I don't think it does in profile view either, therefore question the "Yet"
 * Landscape
 * "which, according to Pächt" you have "which" beginning consecutive clauses. Suggest splitting the sentence at the start of the quote I've extracted and change the word "which" to "These,"
 * Relationship etc.
 * "As in Florence" I'm not quite getting the "as in" part
 * "the Italians dominated the northern artists who had moved away from their roots of the earlier century" I'm puzzling rather over this one.
 * Destruction
 * "for about 130 years" Suggest delete, overdetail. Obviously that had implications for art that made it through the first 130 years, but I think it's more than the reader needs, and the sentence works better without the phrase.
 * " When The Louvre" I would use the French term, "The Louvre" looks odd to me, especially since you've mentioned it by French name in image captions.
 * "sought to increase their prestige" Who is being referred to here?
 * Conservation etc.
 * "Panofsky developed the language" hm, maybe "terminology" for "language"
 * A mention of what became of the paintings Albert purchased could be interesting.
 * The ref note mentions "Queen Victoria donated the best of them to the National Gallery after the Prince Consort's death." Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You might be able to link to a "by donor" search on the NG site. Others remain in the Royal Collection. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, now referenced to this. Ceoil (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt. All of this last batch done except the third and last (for now). Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Excellently done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt, particularly for reading this long page, and for the comments. Very helpful and good catches throughout. Victoria (tk) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

First off: wow. A few comments from a first readthrough:
 * Comments
 * The first sentence is too long. I think you should break after Renaissance.
 * I'm conflicted about this because the movement grew from Burgundian dominance in the Burgundian Netherlands and was confined to a specific area, which I think needs to be mentioned. Will leave to Ceoil to see how to fix this. Victoria (tk) 00:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave this a shot, linking to Burgundian Netherlands and shoving the cities into a note, but I'm not crazy about doing that. The Burgundian Netherlands is a late-medieval construct of sorts, the movement was confined to a specific location (which I think is important to mention in the lead sentence), and I can't think of a way of splitting the sentence as it was without making it unnecessarily wordy. Would want 's agreement re this, or have him give it shot as he's the better lead-writer than I am. Victoria (tk) 18:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "separate from the Renaissance humanism" but "incorporation of Renaissance ideals". Huh?
 * "The period is also noted for its sculpture, tapestries, illuminated manuscripts, stained glass, carved retables and sculptures."—"period" is the Northern Renaissance, yes? I don't see the relevance of this sentence in the lead of this article about painting. It's better suited for the NR article. (Also, you have sculpture twice)
 * There was a lot of cross over, which is explained in the article body, but perhalps might need to be emphasised in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Mid-sentence "Early Netherlandish" or "early Netherlandish"?
 * Good catch! Fixed. Victoria (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You should centre that gallery in Landscape.
 * Yes, done. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "24 works confidently attributed to him, a number often challenged"—isn't that a contradiction? And I wonder if repetition, "Works attributed to Jan have since shrunk to around 26–28", so soon after can be avoided.
 * Ceoil clarified this. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Similarly, a discussion on "notnames" features twice.—indopug (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ceoil removed it. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! All good points. Working .... Victoria (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers, and my quibbles (minor on the whole) were thoroughly dealt with there. Since then, I see from the formidably expert input above, the article has improved further, and insofar as the opinions of the layest of laymen are of use here I observe that the page is certainly of WP's highest standard, meeting all the FA criteria. It is an example of how an enthusiastic and scholarly article on a topic of which a reader may know nothing can communicate the editors' scholarship and enthusiasm, and enthuse and inform the newcomer. Top-notch stuff! Tim riley (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Tim, for you support and all the helpful and diligent insights at the PR, they were much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tim for the support, the very kind words, and, as Ceoil says, the PR work. Victoria (tk) 21:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Note There are a few duplicated links mainly in the second half of the article. Please check that all are justified. Graham Colm (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.